Hey SportsLaw ...

[Sports Law]

Your point is well taken; but we're dealing with two different sets of rules - the NFL's and the NCAA's. Unfortunately for Williams, he has lost on both counts.

The NFL eligibility issue (Clarett v. NFL) has already been thoroughly addressed in this forum and others. As for the NCAA eligibility question: Even though Williams did nothing to violate the law, Williams broke NCAA rules on amateurism in two different ways - i) he hired and agent and accepted benefits from that agent; and, ii) he lost his academic eligibility by not passing the requisite number of semester hours (recently changed to 6 hours per semester). While Williams claims that he has documented the return of the money that he had accepted from the agent and other endorsements (allegedly, over $100,000) in his waiver request to the NCAA and he had enrolled in and attended summer school courses to try to get back on track with the academic progress rules, the simple fact is he knew what the rules were (can't sign with an agent/must maintain academic progress) and he broke them. So, the NCAA is taking the position that it can't set the precedent of restoring his eligibility just because things didn't turn out the way he had hoped.

The NCAA press release on the issue said that Williams had the obvious intent of relinquishing his NCAA eligibility, he knew that there was a risk that the Clarett ruling would be appealed by the NFL and that the ruling could be overturned. Even so, he still hired an agent, accepted benefits from that agent, entered into an endorsement agreement and dropped out of school. The NCAA's position was that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You knew what the rules were and you made the conscious decision to break them; so, now you get to bear the consequences of those actions. (You've heard me preach that sermon on other occasions; so I guess I can't go back on that now). They also didn't want to take the chance of someone else down the road trying to do the same thing just because they didn't get drafted high enough or some other similar reason (at least in football). The NCAA took great pains to state that there were two separate eligibility committees that reviewed the issue - academic and loss of amateur status - and that both committees denied the reinstatement request. USC has the opportunity to appeal the decision; but has already said that they considered the matter closed.

Now, with all that said, just because the NCAA decided that this would be the circumstance in which it would stick to the letter of its rules, that doesn't mean that it was the fair thing to do. True, Williams knew the rules, knew that he was taking a risk and made the decision to take his chances anyway; however, he did everything he could to try to "right the wrong" and received little or no credit for that extra effort. Again, I'm a big believer in personal responsibility; but, its just a shame to see a guy that is, by all reports, a class act get the short end just for taking advantage of newly-presented, "newly-legally-available" opportunities that were just as quickly taken away. At the same time, its just fine for Miami frosh Willie Williams to play even though he has an arrest record longer than your arm (or his, for that matter). Sometimes, it just doesn't seem right. By the way, has anyone heard from Maurice Clarett lately?

www.glazerlaw.com

[PonyFan]

Really interesting stuff, Sports Law. You're a great asset to this site!

Is there a process through which Williams still could appeal to try to regain his eligibility? Or is this an absolutely done deal? I'm generally a believer in the idea that athletes don't deserve special treatment or second chances when something happens that's a result of their own action and decisions, but I heard an interview with Williams and he sounds like a very classy young man who genuinely wants to be part of a team. I commend him for all the academic work he did to regain his eligibility.

I'm like you, wondering what's happened to Clarett. He seems to be the type of athlete who I think does not deserve a second chance. Maybe that's hypocritical to wish a second chance for Williams and not fot Clarett, but at least Williams has acted like a student, rather than merely a jock.

And maybe it's because I'll miss watching Williams play this year. I won't miss watching Clarett. I think he was a one-hit wonder if ever there was one.

[jtstang]

The NCAA rules for eligibility are online at www.ncaa.org. I'm sure you can find the appeal procedures there. Although I read on the web yesterday he had no intent to appeal. I guess he could change his mind. Better yet, he should just focus on getting his grades, which would have spared him a lot of this hassle in the first place.

[jtstang]

The NCAA's position was that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

That phrase, by the way, is my personal favorite when counseling clients or trying to hold opposing counsel to their word. Cracks me up.

[PonyFan]

Good point - well said, jtstang

[Hoofprint]

So while we're at it, Sports Law, can you explain the Jeremy Bloom thing? The Colorado WR is a stud skier, and needs cash to train. The NCAA says that he can't collect endorsement money from sponsors, and because he signed contracts with some sponsors, he can't play.

However, if he was a star baseball prospect and the Yankees wanted to give him a million bucks a year to train in the minors while playing college football, that would be OK.

Has the NCAA EVER made a logical decision?

[GoRedGoBlue]

Your point is well taken; but we're dealing with two different sets of rules - the NFL's and the NCAA's. Unfortunately for Williams, he has lost on both counts.

The NFL eligibility issue (Clarett v. NFL) has already been thoroughly addressed in this forum and others. As for the NCAA eligibility question: Even though Williams did nothing to violate the law, Williams broke NCAA rules on amateurism in two different ways - i) he hired and agent and accepted benefits from that agent; and, ii) he lost his academic eligibility by not passing the requisite number of semester hours (recently changed to 6 hours per semester). While Williams claims that he has documented the return of the money that he had accepted from the agent and other endorsements (allegedly, over $100,000) in his waiver request to the NCAA and he had enrolled in and attended summer school courses to try to get back on track with the academic progress rules, the simple fact is he knew what the rules were (can't sign with an agent/must maintain academic progress) and he broke them. So, the NCAA is taking the position that it can't set the precedent of restoring his eligibility just because things didn't turn out the way he had hoped.

The NCAA press release on the issue said that Williams had the obvious intent of relinquishing his NCAA eligibility, he knew that there was a risk that the Clarett ruling would be appealed by the NFL and that the ruling could be overturned. Even so, he still hired an agent, accepted benefits from that agent, entered into an endorsement agreement and dropped out of school. The NCAA's position was that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You knew what the rules were and you made the conscious decision to break them; so, now you get to bear the consequences of those actions. (You've heard me preach that sermon on other occasions; so I guess I can't go back on that now). They also didn't want to take the chance of someone else down the road trying to do the same thing just because they didn't get drafted high enough or some other similar reason (at least in football). The NCAA took great pains to state that there were two separate eligibility committees that reviewed the issue - academic and loss of amateur status - and that both committees denied the reinstatement request. USC has the opportunity to appeal the decision; but has already said that they considered the matter closed.

Now, with all that said, just because the NCAA decided that this would be the circumstance in which it would stick to the letter of its rules, that doesn't mean that it was the fair thing to do. True, Williams knew the rules, knew that he was taking a risk and made the decision to take his chances anyway; however, he did everything he could to try to "right the wrong" and received little or no credit for that extra effort. Again, I'm a big believer in personal responsibility; but, its just a shame to see a guy that is, by all reports, a class act get the short end just for taking advantage of newly-presented, "newly-legally-available" opportunities that were just as quickly taken away. At the same time, its just fine for Miami frosh Willie Williams to play even though he has an arrest record longer than your arm (or his, for that matter). Sometimes, it just doesn't seem right. By the way, has anyone heard from Maurice Clarett lately?

www.glazerlaw.com

I do not believe it was even possible for Williams to be academically qualified...he withdrew from Spring semester. You can only take so many hours in the summer to count toward that year's eligibility.

Anyone confirm this?

[GoRedGoBlue]

Your point is well taken; but we're dealing with two different sets of rules - the NFL's and the NCAA's. Unfortunately for Williams, he has lost on both counts.

The NFL eligibility issue (Clarett v. NFL) has already been thoroughly addressed in this forum and others. As for the NCAA eligibility question: Even though Williams did nothing to violate the law, Williams broke NCAA rules on amateurism in two different ways - i) he hired and agent and accepted benefits from that agent; and, ii) he lost his academic eligibility by not passing the requisite number of semester hours (recently changed to 6 hours per semester). While Williams claims that he has documented the return of the money that he had accepted from the agent and other endorsements (allegedly, over $100,000) in his waiver request to the NCAA and he had enrolled in and attended summer school courses to try to get back on track with the academic progress rules, the simple fact is he knew what the rules were (can't sign with an agent/must maintain academic progress) and he broke them. So, the NCAA is taking the position that it can't set the precedent of restoring his eligibility just because things didn't turn out the way he had hoped.

The NCAA press release on the issue said that Williams had the obvious intent of relinquishing his NCAA eligibility, he knew that there was a risk that the Clarett ruling would be appealed by the NFL and that the ruling could be overturned. Even so, he still hired an agent, accepted benefits from that agent, entered into an endorsement agreement and dropped out of school. The NCAA's position was that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You knew what the rules were and you made the conscious decision to break them; so, now you get to bear the consequences of those actions. (You've heard me preach that sermon on other occasions; so I guess I can't go back on that now). They also didn't want to take the chance of someone else down the road trying to do the same thing just because they didn't get drafted high enough or some other similar reason (at least in football). The NCAA took great pains to state that there were two separate eligibility committees that reviewed the issue - academic and loss of amateur status - and that both committees denied the reinstatement request. USC has the opportunity to appeal the decision; but has already said that they considered the matter closed.

Now, with all that said, just because the NCAA decided that this would be the circumstance in which it would stick to the letter of its rules, that doesn't mean that it was the fair thing to do. True, Williams knew the rules, knew that he was taking a risk and made the decision to take his chances anyway; however, he did everything he could to try to "right the wrong" and received little or no credit for that extra effort. Again, I'm a big believer in personal responsibility; but, its just a shame to see a guy that is, by all reports, a class act get the short end just for taking advantage of newly-presented, "newly-legally-available" opportunities that were just as quickly taken away. At the same time, its just fine for Miami frosh Willie Williams to play even though he has an arrest record longer than your arm (or his, for that matter). Sometimes, it just doesn't seem right. By the way, has anyone heard from Maurice Clarett lately?

www.glazerlaw.com

I do not believe it was even possible for Williams to be academically qualified...he withdrew from Spring semester. You can only take so many hours in the summer to count toward that year's eligibility.

Anyone confirm this?