NCAA Basketball Investigation/Lawsuit Thread (merged)

[jimotis4heisman]

all of todays articles so far from the dispatch.
O'Brien wins lawsuit against Ohio State Updated: 10:37 AM
Former Ohio State men's basketball coach Jim O'Brien has won his lawsuit against the university over his firing two years ago.Another trial will be scheduled to determine the amount of damages that O'Brien will receive.
» O'Brien photo gallery
» O'Brien timeline
» Today's decision (large .pdf download)
» O'Brien's OSU contract (.pdf)
» The Sports Hot Issue: Do you agree with the ruling in Jim O'Brien's lawsuit against Ohio State?

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Could someone, who understands the ins and outs of NCAA investigations, tell us what this means for the team?

Is the NCAA likely to be lenient, as Ohio State will pay through the nose for doing what's right?

Or is it likely to try to make the point that a major violation took place by punishing Ohio State?

Its just my educated opinion, but the lawsuit and NCAA are two seperate issues. I don't think the lawsuit decision will have any effect on the NCAA decision.

Obie "won" his lawsuit due to the legal language in his contract, not because he wasn't guilty of what the NCAA alleges. Its important to remember that the NCAA and a legal court room do not have a lot in common.

 

[Steve19]

But in his ruling, the judge disputed the university's claim that O'Brien acted in bad faith and tried to cover up his actions.


"The evidence does not support such a sinister view of plaintiff's misconduct," Clark said.

If a sinister view is not supported and if the court finds that there is no proof that he gave the "loan" when the prospective player was eligible, how can the NCAA find that there was a violation on the loan?

Seems to me that it doesn't take all the nanny stuff off the table but it might seriously prejudice the NCAA ability to find against Ohio State on the $6000 payment or to find lack of institutional control in that instance. That make sense?

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Scout.com (free)

2/15/06

Great read on the O'Brien lawsuit by Dave Biddle.

 

[jwinslow]

^^^ minus the whining bengal fan part...

 

[BB73]

Apparently the judge ruled that tOSU wasn't justified in firing O'Brien because he was fired before any of the NCAA determinations were made. It seems clear to me that the results of the investigation (a "major" investigation which led, or will lead, to a postseason ban and a loss of scholarships) justify his firing, but they occurred, or will occur, after the point where he was fired.

Here is the pertinent language regarding whether tOSU is justified in firing O'Brien under section 5.1.b of his contract.

The contract says that tOSU "may terminate this agreement at any time for cause" if there is an occurrence of either 5.1a, 5.1.b, or 5.1.c.

5.1.b a violation by Coach (or a violation by a men's basketball program staff member about which Coach knew or should have known and did not report to appropriate Ohio State personnel) of applicable law, policy, rule or regulation of the NCAA or the Big Ten Conference which leads to a "major" infraction investigation by the NCAA or the Big Ten Conference and which results in a finding by the NCAA of the Big Ten Conference of lack of institutional control over the men's basketball program or which results in Ohio State being sanctioned by the NCAA of the Big Ten Conference in one or more of the following ways:

(i) a reduction in the number of scholarships permitted to be allocated
(ii) a limitation on recruiting activities or reduction in the number of evaluation days
(iii) a reduction in the number of expense-paid, official recruiting visits
(iv) placement of the men's basketball program or Ohio State on probation
(v) being banned from NCAA post-season play for at least one season
(vi) being banned from regional or national television coverage for at least one basketball season with a consequent loss by Ohio State of television revenues for at least one basketball season

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Scout.com$

2/15/06

Interview with O'Brien about his legal fight and allegations against him, by Steve Helwagen.

My Take: He really feels he did not break any NCAA rules.........unbelievable.

 

[sandgk]

There is a pretty candid assessment of this whole messy situation over the-ozone.net by John Porentas.

Written by a Buckeye - but doesn't pull any punches at all.

LINK (Ozone - free)

Places blame - and lack thereof in a different fashion than many here might expect.

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Canton

2/16/06

Judge rules for O’Brien in OSU firing

Thursday, February 16, 2006


[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The Associated Press [/FONT]



COLUMBUS - Ohio State, awaiting a decision on possible penalties for NCAA rules violations under former basketball Coach Jim O’Brien, could have to pay him millions of dollars for firing him under a judge’s ruling Wednesday.
O’Brien claimed the university improperly fired him in June 2004 for loaning $6,000 of his own money to a recruit.
Ohio Court of Claims Judge Joseph T. Clark ruled O’Brien broke his contract by giving the loan and failing to inform university officials, but the error was not serious enough to warrant firing. The university violated the contract by firing him without compensation, the ruling said.
The 55-year-old O’Brien sued for $3.5 million in lost wages and benefits. The award, which could reach nearly $9.5 million with interest and other damages, will be determined after another hearing.
O’Brien said he was pleased with the decision, but disappointed in the way the dispute had to be settled.
“As much as it’s a nice outcome for me, I still don’t really feel that there are any real winners in this thing,” O’Brien said.
The NCAA is expected to decide within the next few weeks whether to penalize the school for violations committed during O’Brien’s tenure, including gifts of cash, housing and other benefits to players. Earlier this month, the NCAA found seven violations in the basketball program and one each in the football and women’s basketball programs. O’Brien, who coached the Buckeyes for seven years and led them to the Final Four in 1999, testified he gave $6,000 in $50 and $100 bills that had accumulated in his office desk drawer to Aleksandar Radojevic, a 7-foot-3 prospect from Serbia. He said he gave Radojevic the loan in 1999 because the player’s father was dying and the family had no money for medicine or the funeral. O’Brien argued the loan did not violate NCAA bylaws because he knew Radojevic already had lost his amateur status.

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

DDN

2/16/06

O'Brien ruling shouldn't affect Biancardi

NCAA says court case won't influence infractions committee

By Marc Katz

Dayton Daily News

A judge ruled Wednesday that former Ohio State basketball coach Jim O'Brien broke a rule when he loaned $6,000 to a recruit, but an NCAA spokesman said that O'Brien's lawsuit victory will not affect an infractions committee mulling alleged rules violations.

Wright State coach Paul Biancardi, a former OSU assistant, appeared at a hearing before the Division I Committee on Infractions earlier this month to defend himself against allegations that he broke several NCAA rules while with the Buckeyes. One of those allegations is that Biancardi handled the cash payment meant for former OSU recruit Aleksandar Radojevic.

The NCAA was expected to make a ruling within 3-to-5 weeks following the hearing.

"What they're looking at is evidence presented them during the (Feb. 3-4) hearing," NCAA spokesman Kent Barrett said.

O'Brien, whom OSU fired in June 2004 for admitting the payment, and Biancardi both claim that the cash transfer did not violate NCAA rules because Radojevic had professional experience in Europe and therefore was ineligible.

Despite OSU's attempts to have Radojevic reinstated, the NCAA ruled him permanently ineligible in the spring of 1999, and he never played for the Buckeyes.

O'Brien sued the school, arguing that by terminating him without pay it violated a provision in his contract that stated OSU couldn't do so unless the NCAA ruled that he committed a major infraction.

Judge Joseph T. Clark, while saying that the payment would be considered an NCAA violation, ruled it did not merit O'Brien's firing.

"I don't see how it would affect coach Biancardi," said James Zeszutek, Biancardi's attorney. "It's two separate bodies (the court and the NCAA)."

Mike Cusack, Wright State's athletics director, said he still had to discuss the matter with WSU vice president of student affairs Dan Abrahamowicz and Horizon League attorney Stephanie Jarvis, who attended the NCAA hearing with him.

Contact Marc Katz at 225-2157.

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Dispatch

2/16/06

O’Brien defeats OSU

School erred in firing coach, judge says; damages still undecided

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Kathy Lynn Gray
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH


Stories


O’Brien defeats OSU
Remaining questions
The O’Brien saga
What the judge said Documents


Decision: James J. O'Brien vs. The Ohio State University (.pdf format; will take some time to download; Adobe Acrobat reader required)
Suit: James J. O'Brien vs. The Ohio State University (.pdf format)
Suit:Kathleen Saylers vs. Dan Roslovic and Kim Roslovic (.pdf format)
Jim O'Brien's contract (.pdf format)

The Sports Hot Issue


Do you agree with the ruling in Jim O'Brien's lawsuit against Ohio State?
Photo gallery


Jim O'Brien photo gallery
Timeline


O’Brien's career at OSU From the archive


O’Brien fired (June 9, 2004)
Lawsuit set O’Brien’s demise in motion (June 9, 2004)
O'Brien's record at OSU (June 9, 2004)
Transcript of Andy Geiger's news conference (June 9, 2004)




Former Ohio State men’s basketball coach Jim O’Brien will have to wait to see whether the breach-of-contract lawsuit he won yesterday against Ohio State University means he’s owed millions.

Judge Joseph T. Clark of the Ohio Court of Claims ruled that O’Brien proved that he had not created a "material breach" of his contract and thus Ohio State should not have fired him on June 8, 2004. O’Brien asked for up to $6 million in damages; Clark will hold a separate trial to determine that.

The former coach said the "most damning thing" about the case has been how it has affected his reputation.

"Without question, it’s been soiled. I have to move on the best I can," he said yesterday while on the road in Florida.

O’Brien said he was "thrilled" with the decision but "tremendously disappointed that this matter had to be resolved in the manner that it did. I still really don’t feel there are any real winners in this thing, and I sincerely wish we hadn’t ended up at this juncture."

O’Brien would not answer questions about the facts of the case until after the damages phase. His attorneys, Joseph P. Murray and Brian K. Murphy, would not comment.

Ohio State officials would not discuss the decision yesterday.

No matter what the judge decides about damages, the case already has cost the university a bundle. Ohio State had spent $436,500 for outside attorneys as of the end of 2005, spokesman Jim Lynch said yesterday.

The school hired attorneys David S. Cupps and William G. Porter II from the law firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP to defend it in the O’Brien case. Also assisting was Peggy W. Corn, an Ohio assistant attorney general.

O’Brien argued that he was improperly fired after he revealed in April 2004 to then-Athletics Director Andy Geiger that he had loaned a potential recruit’s mother $6,000 in 1998.

O’Brien said that loaning Aleksandar Radojevic’s mother the money was not an NCAA violation because he knew at the time that Radojevic was a professional athlete.

Clark decided that O’Brien had breached his contract by making the loan, but said that "single, isolated failure of performance" was not serious enough to fire O’Brien.

Ohio State’s "decision to do so without any compensation to (O’Brien) was a breach of the parties’ agreement," Clark wrote.

"While plaintiff’s conduct prior to disclosing the loan was not completely consistent with good faith and fair dealing, plaintiff did make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute," Clark wrote. Ohio State "chose a course that was adversarial."

Clark put much of the blame on Geiger, noting that Geiger refused to work with O’Brien on a resolution and refused to discuss the issue with O’Brien’s attorneys before the firing.

Clark also concluded that O’Brien made the loan "for humanitarian purposes and not for the purpose of gaining an improper recruiting advantage."

The 7-foot-3-inch Radojevic wanted to play for Ohio State, but he did not tell officials that he had been on a professional team in his homeland of Yugoslavia in 1996. His former team informed OSU of that fact while OSU was recruiting him.

Ohio State argued that O’Brien continued to recruit Radojevic after he learned about his past and had hidden the loan from Ohio State.

The NCAA is expected to rule on the loan’s propriety and other possible violations in early March.

An NCAA spokesman would not comment on the ruling yesterday.

Kathleen Salyers, the Gahanna nanny whose lawsuit led to the public disclosure of the $6,000 loan, said O’Brien’s success helps prove that her claims were correct.

"I told the truth, and that was supported in his lawsuit."

She said she doesn’t believe that O’Brien loaned the money to Radojevic for humanitarian reasons.

"I personally believe it was to get him to come to OSU. I know how strongly they were fighting to get him to come."

Ohio State officials would not speak about yesterday’s ruling, but the school issued statements from President Karen A. Holbrook and general counsel Christopher Culley.

"In this matter we have acted forthrightly in compliance with NCAA rules and in the best interests of the athletics program and the university," Holbrook said.

Culley said that Ohio State disagrees with the judge’s decision but cannot appeal until the damages phase of the case is completed.

O’Brien’s contract, signed in 1999, allowed his firing if he created "a material breach" of the agreement and could not remedy the breach to OSU’s satisfaction within 30 days.

The contract also said O’Brien could be fired if he violated NCAA rules and the NCAA leveled certain sanctions against OSU, or if it found the school had a "lack of institutional control over the men’s basketball program."

In the trial, Ohio State tried to justify O’Brien’s termination only under the "material breach" portion of his contract. Ohio State’s dismissal letter to O’Brien also states that he was being fired under that portion of the contract.

Thus, Clark considered only that portion of the contract in deciding the case.

Ohio State has expanded the termination sections of morerecent coaching contracts. The contracts signed by football coach Jim Tressel in 2003 and men’s basketball coach Thad Matta last year both include clauses allowing OSU to cite fraud or dishonesty as reasons they could be fired.

[email protected]

Thursday, February 16, 2006

The O’Brien saga
Thursday, February 16, 2006


Jim O’Brien sued OSU after he was fired for loaning $6,000 to the family of a player who was was being recruited. O’Brien said he knew the player, Aleksandar Radojevic, was not eligible at the time. Summary of events:
1998

• September : Radojevic, a sophomore at a Kansas community college who is being recruited by Ohio State, asks O’Brien for money for medical expenses for Radojevic’s father.
• October : O’Brien and Athletics Director Andy Geiger each receive letters from a Yugoslavian professional basketball team saying that Radojevic had played for them in 1996 and thus does not have the amateur status needed to play at the college level.
• Nov . 11: Radojevic signs letter of intent to play for Ohio State.
• Late 1998: O’Brien gives assistant coach Paul Biancardi an envelope with $6,000 in cash and asks him to make sure it gets to Radojevic’s family in Yugoslavia. His father had died in September.
1999

• Feb . 2: NCAA notifies OSU compliance officer Heather Lyke Catalano that Radojevic is not an amateur because he had played professionally in Yugoslavia.
• March 24: Ohio State unsuccessfully petitions the NCAA to allow Radojevic to play.
• June : Radojevic enters the National Basketball Association draft and is picked up by the Toronto Raptors.
2003

• August : O’Brien notifies Geiger that a lawsuit involving Kathleen Salyers, of Gahanna, and former basketball player Slobodan Savovic could be trouble for the university.
• Aug . 6: Salyers files a lawsuit against Kim and Dan Roslovic, a Bexley couple who had befriended Savovic when he first came to town. Salyers asked to be repaid for housing Savovic during part of his time at Ohio State. Depositions and documents in the lawsuit appear to reveal NCAA violations by the OSU basketball program.
2004

• April 24: O’Brien tells Geiger that he loaned Radojevic’s family $6,000 and that the fact will be made public because of the Salyers lawsuit.
• May 18: Ohio State informs the NCAA enforcement staff of O’Brien’s loan; NCAA begins an investigation.
• June 8: Ohio State fires O’Brien, saying he violated his contract and NCAA rules.
• November : O’Brien sues Ohio State in the Ohio Court of Claims for $6 million.
2005

• May 17: NCAA announces nine findings against OSU athletics program, former coaches and players. One involves the loan.
• Dec . 6: Salyers trial ends with an out-of-court settlement.
• Dec . 12-16: Judge Joseph T. Clark hears O’Brien trial
. 2006

• Feb . 3-4: NCAA infractions committee hears Ohio State case.
• Yesterday :
Clark rules that Ohio State violated O’Brien’s contract. Damages phase will be scheduled later. Early March : NCAA committee expected to issue final ruling on OSU infractions. Sources: Ohio Court of Claims records, court testimony, Ohio State and NCAA records

What the judge said
Thursday, February 16, 2006


Excerpts from Judge Joseph T. Clark’s ruling :
• On why O’Brien gave a $6,000 loan to a recruit’s family without checking to see whether it violated NCAA rules: O’Brien ‘‘ignored these resources not because he was certain that the loan complied with NCAA rules but because the Radojevic family desperately needed his help and because he believed that giving help was the right thing to do."
• On O’Brien’s claim that he knew Aleksandar Radojevic was not eligible: O’Brien’s ‘‘words and conduct are not those of a person who was sure that Radojevic would never play college basketball."
•
On Ohio State’s claim that the loan hurt its reputation :
‘‘The court is not convinced that the Radojevic matter, standing alone, caused serious harm to the reputation of either the men’s basketball program or the university as a whole."
• On the effect the loan had on the relationship between O’Brien and Athletics Director Andy Geiger: ‘‘The court finds that the damage was reparable. Indeed, the court finds that with time and effort, trust could have been restored."
•
On how O’Brien and OSU dealt with each other :
Ohio State ‘‘argues that (O’Brien) acted in bad faith by paying a recruit and then engaging in a ‘cover-up’ designed to prevent (Ohio State) from discovering his misconduct. The evidence does not support such a sinister view of (O’Brien’s) conduct. . . . On the other hand, the evidence reveals conduct on the part of (Ohio State) that was not consistent with good faith and fair dealing. For example, . . . Geiger either failed or refused to work with (O’Brien) toward a resolution even though he had stated that he would do so." • On whether OSU could have suspended O’Brien instead of firing him under the terms of his contract: Ohio State ‘‘bargained away its right to immediately dismiss (O’Brien) simply because of the inconvenience occasioned by a protracted NCAA investigation."

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Dispatch

2/16/06

COMMENTARY

Picking fight with O’Brien ends with no real winner

Thursday, February 16, 2006

BOB HUNTER

</IMG>


The crawl on the bottom of ESPN yesterday said this: "Ohio State coach Jim O’Brien wins lawsuit against the school for improper termination . . . "

There were no asterisks. No "ifs." No "buts." A report on ESPN indicated that a judge had found O’Brien loaned money to a recruit, but that the act didn’t warrant his firing. O’Brien sued for $9.5 million; there will be a separate trial to determine damages.

The whole matter was covered by TV in 18 seconds.

Outside of Ohio and maybe Boston, where O’Brien once coached, this isn’t a big deal. So unless the NCAA comes down hard on him when it rules on violations by the men’s basketball program, this will be about the end of it.

As far as the average college hoops fan in Pocatello or Poughkeepsie knows, it pretty much boils down to that one line.

O’Brien wins. Ohio State loses. He must not have done whatever they said he did. Next.

To a large extent this is what the former OSU basketball coach wanted. Those who know O’Brien will tell you this was never about the money. He believes he was wrongly fired, he believes he was smeared by the university and he wasn’t about to take it.

Remember what O’Brien supposedly said back in 2001 when he grabbed a thug in Vatican City he caught trying to pick his pocket?

"You want a piece of me?"

O’Brien is a fighter. He doesn’t forget. He can be vengeful and unforgiving.
Remember the $185,000 lawsuit he carried on against Boston College after he had more than doubled his salary to become the coach at Ohio State?

He sued BC because he believed its admissions director had sabotaged his program by rejecting recruits for racial reasons, essentially costing him an outstanding seven-player class. His anger only intensified when college officials allegedly told The Boston Globe that he had been fired from his position because he "could not be trusted."

That lawsuit didn’t make sense to the rest of us, but it did to him. When he feels he has been unjustly aggrieved, it’s not his nature to put his tail between his legs and slink away.

In that case, he believed his program had been stolen from him. In this case, it is his reputation. He saw this lawsuit was the only means he had to get it back.

"Without question," O’Brien said yesterday. "I can go on for days about how sorry I am that this even happened. But my reputation in this business has always meant a lot to me and without question, it has been soiled. There’s not a whole lot I can do about that right now but just move on the best that I can.

"That (reputation) has been the most damaging thing. I can go get another job, I can replace some lost income. . . . But the thing I’ve always told my players is, ‘Your respect and reputation is utmost,’ and I’m struggling to get that back right now."

Is O’Brien blameless in this deal? Of course not. And despite the snippets of news that most of America will get from this, the judgment didn’t indicate that. The judge basically said that O’Brien committed an NCAA violation but didn’t believe it merited him being fired the way he was. That’s a lot different than saying he did nothing wrong.

My guess is that O’Brien has admitted to his closest friends that giving $6,000 to the family of a recruit, regardless of his humanitarian motives, was the dumbest thing he has ever done. But he obviously doesn’t believe he should have been fired for it. He obviously felt betrayed that former OSU athletics director Andy Geiger fired him without hearing his side of the story, which takes us back to the original premise.

You want a piece of Obie, Andy? You got it.

You aren’t going to hear him say that in public and you certainly aren’t going to hear any regrets from OSU. You aren’t going to hear much of anything, really, except the obvious.

"As much as it’s a nice outcome for me," O’Brien said, "I still really don’t feel that there are any real winners in this thing."

Sadly, at this point, this is the only kind of winning there is.

Bob Hunter is a sports columnist for The Dispatch.

[email protected]

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Dispatch

2/16/06

ANALYSIS

In the end, Geiger’s reputation takes a hit

Judge faults ex-OSU AD for his actions in firing

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Rob Oller
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH




When Andy Geiger retires to his beloved fly-fishing river in the Pacific Northwest, it might not be too surprising if the former Ohio State athletics director hooks himself in the hat.
Playing AD used to come naturally to Geiger, but in recent years he has at times struggled to get out of his own way.
Geiger allowed himself to be thrust front and center into the Maurice Clarett saga, then became the point man in the 2004 firing of Jim O’Brien and continuing controversy involving the men’s basketball program before he announced his retirement 13 months ago.
Geiger was the face of the athletics department, but even when he desperately desires to lay low, as during the O’Brien lawsuit against OSU and the NCAA basketball investigation, the barbs have a way of finding him.
The result is that Geiger’s legacy, which once centered on construction and face-lifts of OSU sports facilities, could itself need repair.
"He definitely needs some boosting, and he deserves some boosting," said Dutch Baughman, executive director of the Division I Athletic Directors’ Association.
The latest reputation-rebuilding project took a hit yesterday when Judge Joseph T. Clark singled out Geiger for his role in the firing of O’Brien on June 8, 2004. Clark concluded, in ruling for O’Brien in the $9.5 million wrongfultermination suit against the university, that "Geiger either failed or refused to work with (O’Brien) toward a resolution even though he had stated he would do so."
Clark also wrote that "after Geiger informed (O’Brien) that the process was going to become adversarial and encouraged (O’Brien) to retain legal counsel, Geiger did not permit counsel the opportunity to discuss the issue with him."
Finally, "Geiger allowed (O’Brien) only four hours to consider his fate after delivering the June 8, 2004 (termination) letter."
Geiger, who did not return phone calls seeking comment, is proof of how quickly an AD’s image can tarnish.
"The bad part is that just because of one or two individual things, it can muddy up the situation to where people forget all the good things. It’s an unfair deal," said Rudy Davalos, the athletics director at New Mexico, who has worked with Geiger on NCAA matters.
Unfair, but not unforeseen. Taking the heat comes with the territory, Davalos said.
"We are all aware of that when we take jobs. You just hope you don’t get bit by it," he said.
Ironically, the cracks in the foundation of Geiger’s legacy have come mostly during times of OSU success. During the 1998-99 season, in which the Buckeyes advanced to the Final Four, O’Brien removed $6,000 in cash from his office desk and placed it in an unmarked envelope. The money was earmarked for the family of recruit Alex Radojevic. Geiger did not learn from O’Brien of the violation until April 24, 2004, but waited nearly two months to fire the coach after initially telling him "we will try to work through this together."
An even more public controversy erupted in late 2002 as the Buckeyes prepared to play Miami for the national football championship in the Fiesta Bowl. Tailback Maurice Clarett criticized the university for not allowing him to attend the funeral of a friend in Ohio, then accused OSU officials of lying about their willingness to fly him there.
Geiger’s responses became increasingly acerbic as Clarett’s accusations continued for more than two years. During the process, Geiger received more criticism than Clarett’s coach, Jim Tressel.
It was quite a switch from Geiger’s first 10 years, when then-football coach John Cooper took most of the heat. In some ways, the AD was fortunate to dodge the bullets that long.
"In our business, it’s not a matter of if controversy occurs, but when," Baughman said. "It’s going to happen."
Unfortunately for Geiger, it happened later rather than sooner. The tendency is to remember the lingering taste more than the initial flavor.
"This all has come at the end of his career, which was an absolute stellar career," Baughman said.
[email protected]

 

[BuckeyeRob]

The timing of the ruling of the NCAA is no coinciednce.

Yes, everyone will TELL you that this judges ruling will not effect the outcome of the NCAA ruling but your silly to believe that it wont have a major influence in the outcome.

The ruled that O'Brien did not have a "material breach" of his contract. The civil court system uses a preponderence of the evidence standard, the same that the NCAA uses when determining if a member has violated one of its regulations.

I think this ruling makes it rather difficult for the NCAA to do much more than accept what OSU has already done in self impossed sanctions. Take down the Banners and refund the money from the tournement appearences during the period of time in question.

 

[OH10]

If anyone has the time and could find a copy of the judge's opinion in this matter, I'd love to read it and see how he based his decision.

From reading the contract language, and the fact that I think O'Brien truly believed Radojevic was eligible, it sounds like the judge got it flat wrong. I'd like to read his rationale first though.