Posts Tagged ‘Robert Romano’

The Federal Department of Education has recently initiated a Title IX investigation into the manner in which Florida State conducted its inquiry of the alleged sexual assault involving Jameis Winston and a female Florida State student back in December 2012. As a result of the DOE investigation, Florida State, who has previously stated that the matter was closed, has decided that Jameis Winston will now face a disciplinary hearing to determine whether he violated FSU’s code of conduct in relation to the incident.images

Jameis Winston, who, as its quarterback, led FSU to an undefeated season and national championship last season, was never charged with a crime when a state investigation into the matter ended in late 2013.

That being said, Jameis Winston has now been notified by a letter received from Florida State that “he might be charged with one of four violations of FSU’s student conduct code regarding sexual conduct.” Included in the letter, Florida State detailed a timeline of its handling of the case, breaking its silence on the matter that dates back to December 2012.

Per the school’s student conduct policy, Winston has five days to schedule “an information hearing” wherein he will be presented with his rights and learn more about the forthcoming conduct hearing. The conduct hearing will also determine whether or not Winston will be actually charged with breaching the school’s code of conduct. If he is found to have violated the student conduct policy he can be disciplined, with such discipline ranging from a verbal reprimand to expulsion.

Three individuals independent of the university have been selected by the Florida State to hear the case, though both Jameis Winston and his accuser will be able to “strike one of the people from hearing the case.”

The attorney for the accuser commented that the university going with a third party is a “highly unusual process,” but it does address “some concerns” about the school’s ability to effectively and fairly come to a decision amid months of intense media scrutiny.

Advertisements

Last week FIBA would not allow the Qatari Women’s Basketball team to compete at the Asian Games if they wore their traditional religious head scarves.  During a Monday Night Football game, the NFL penalized a Muslim player who knelt in prayer after scoring a touchdown.  Sports, which has traditionally taken a leadership role on social issues such as race and sexual orientation, is taking a backseat when it comes to concerns over religious freedom

The Kansas City Chief’s defensive back, Husain Abdulla, was penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct after he kneeled in Muslim prayer in the end zone after scoring a touchdown in a Monday Night Football Game.

Perhaps the official who threw the flag on the Abdullah play was unfamiliar with Muslim custom. Perhaps it was something else because there are numerous occasions where an NFL Player of Christian faith marks his score with a sign of deference, reflection, or tribute to their higher power without incident.

In other words, Brandon Marshall can get on knees and raise his hands to Jesus after touchdown with no penalty, but Husain Abdullah bows his head to mecca and its fifteen yards.

 

Abdullah took the high road after the game and said he thought he was penalized for sliding into the prayer, though the head referee cited “falling to the ground on the knees” in announcing the infraction.

The excessive celebration rule in which Abdullah allegedly violated states, that an NFL player is “prohibited from engaging in any celebrations while on the ground.” Prayer is never specifically mentioned, though NFL officials usually take a permissive view towards religious exhibition.

To use an example, Greg Jennings was not flagged for this prayer during Super Bowl XLV 48a01bf0-4855-11e4-acdc-77beb4cd7bd6_108869462-1

It is now time for NFL officials to take a permissive view towards all exhibitions of prayer, no matter what religion the prayer originates from.

The first college football coach to be fired comes early this year as the Kansas Jayhawks announced it will be releasing its head coach, Charlie Weis, from his official duties just four games into the season.

Coach Weis posted a 6-22 career record with the Jayhawks, including a 1-18 record in Big 12 play. The Jayhawks posted two wins this season over Southeast Missouri State and Central Michigan, but losses to Duke University and the University of Texas sealed his fate.

But the firing of Coach Weis will cost to the University approximately $7 million dollars. This is because KU terminated the contract with Coach Weis in only the third year of a five-year contract. Per the terms of the contract, however, KU is obligated to pay him the balance of monies owed for the current season and the next two seasons.

Therefore, Coach Weis, whose contract calls for him to receive approximately $2.5 million dollars a year, will receive the full balance owed to him of approximately $7 million dollars.[1]

But what allows for Coach Weis to continue receiving his millions of dollars per year even though he is relieved of the obligation to coach the football team? The answer is because Coach Weis, or the attorney/agent representing him, negotiated specific termination and buyout clauses as part of the employment contract.

Termination clauses in coaching contracts are broken down into two categories: termination for cause and termination without cause.

Termination for cause allows for a college or university to terminate a coach’s contract when it can show “just cause.”  Most universities maintain that “just cause” exist in situations when a coach violates a criminal statute, a coach knowingly commits or even condones by a member of his or her staff a violation of NCCA or conference rules by a member of his or her staff, a coach is unwilling to perform his or her duties, or in situations that would allow the termination of any other university employee considered to be in the same “classification” as the coach.

In addition, coaching contracts usually contain what is referred to as a “morals clause”. A typical morals clause states that any act by a coach, which is considered an act of moral turpitude, could result in termination. Acts of moral turpitude are usually defined as conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals.

In an effort to protect the coaches and in the name of fair play, most termination clauses contain a due process section which include, or should include, the following: a notice provision, an opportunity to be heard or hearing provision, a term which outlines the time frame within such notice and hearing need to be scheduled, and what, if any, punishment could be enforced by the university if just cause is found to exist.

If a college or university can prove that it relieved the coach of his or her duties for cause, the school will be relieved from its obligation to pay him or her the remaining balance of monies owed under the contract.

Absent a finding of just cause, a college or university can still terminate a coach. However, they will be responsible for full payment under the terms of contract unless the contract calls for a negotiated predetermined settlement amount. Most predetermined settlement amounts consist of either a lump sum payment, full payment of all or specific components of the contract for the remainder of the contract term, or for a payment of a percentage of the compensation package for the remainder of the contract term. All of which, except for the lump sum, can be mitigated if the coach finds subsequent employment at another university or at the professional level.

If a coach, on the other hand, decides to breach a contract and work for another college or professional team before the expiration of his or her current contract, the coach would have to buy-out the remaining terms of his or her contract. Buyout clauses typically require a coach to pay their current university a specific amount in order for the coach to be released from a contract anytime before it has expired. Buyout clauses are an essential part of a coach’s contract from the university’s perspective since it is well established in the area of contract law that employers cannot sue for specific performance of a personal service contract. Per the terms of most buyout clauses, if a coach leaves before a release is obtained, he or she can be sued for breach of contract by the university or college. Therefore a buyout clause can discourage a coach from leaving a university early if the terms are severe enough.

In the end it is important to understand that even though negotiations are sometimes tough, intensive and time consuming, proper termination and buyout clauses are essential because they protect the interest of the coaches.

[1] What makes this even more interesting is that Coach Weis will also be paid under the terms of the contract he had with Notre Dame that he signed back in 2005. Per that contract, Coach Weis will be paid approximately $3 to $4 million dollars a year through the 2015 season. (Although this amount is mitigated by the KU contract.)

 

 

The first college football coach to be fired in 2014 comes early this year as Kansas fired its head coach, Charlie Weis, just four games into the season.

Coach Weis posted a 6-22 career record with the Kansas Jayhawks, including a 1-18 record in Big 12 play. The Jayhawks posted two wins this season over Southeast Missouri State and Central Michigan, but losses to Duke University and the University of Texas sealed his fate.

But the firing of Coach Weis does come with additional cost to the University and the students of KU. See Coach Weis is in the third year of a five-year contract, and like most coaching contracts – the University is obligated to pay him the balance of monies owed. Therefore, Coach Weis, whose contract calls for him to received approximately $2.5 million a year, will receive the full balance owed to him of approximately $7 million dollars. Yes, this money to pay Coach Weis for doing absolutely nothing for the next two and a half years, will be paid to him by a public university. Think about this, instead of that $7 million dollars being reinvested into the University for things like books, scholarships, dorms, professor salaries, and such, it will instead be paid to Coach Weis while he sits at home. What makes this even more ridiculous is that he will also be paid under the terms of the contract he had with Notre Dame that he signed back in 2005. Per that contract, Coach Weis will be paid approximately $3 to $4 million dollars a year through the 2015 season. (Although this amount is mitigated by the KU contract.)images

But who is to blame? You cannot blame Coach Weis because I assume he wants to earn his money by coaching the team. You cannot blame the football program and players because you have to assume that they were all playing their best.

The blame lies with the University’s administration that hired the coach and allowed for the school to enter into such terms. See, the administration was blinded by Coach Weis’s resume – for what he had done previously with other teams. Coach Weis first gained acclaim as an offensive coordinator in the NFL, posting successful stints with the Patriots and the Jets. He was then hired as Notre Dame’s head coach prior to the 2005 season where he had initial success. So KU decided to pay him based upon the success he had with these teams, not for any success that he brought to KU. And now because of this, current KU students will be cheated out of $7 million dollars that could of benefited their educational experience.

For those of you who are unaware, the 2014 Asian Games began this week in South Korea. The competition is the world’s second-largest multi-sport event, with about 9,500 athletes representing 45 countries. (Where’s ESPN?)

But even before the Games began, members of the Qatari women’s basketball team were told by FIBA, the governing body of international basketball, that in order for the Qatari team to participate in the games, the players could not wear their headscarves or hijabs, even though they do so in observance of their Islamic faith.

The reason FIBA announced was because that its rules do not allow “headgear, hair accessories, and jewelry.” FIBA stood firm on its arcane position even though it is fully aware that the women basketball players would be wearing headscarves designed specifically for female athletes and that athletes competing in rowing, badminton and other sports have been wearing religious headscarves without incident.

The Qatari team was alerted of FIBA’s stance regarding hijabs but had hoped FIBA would make an allowance based upon the fact that the wearing of a hijab was for religious reasons – not as a fashion statement. When FIBA failed to make any allowance, the Qatari women chose to forfeit the game and then subsequently officially withdrew from the tournament prior to their second scheduled game. (Yes, FIBA will invite you to play in the spirit of international competition, but if you don’t like its rules – go home.)

“We are here to push the international association that all Muslim teams are ready to compete in any competition,” stated Alham Salem M. al-Mana, a member of the Quatai basketball team.

FIBA based in decision on the premise that the hijabs create unsafe conditions on the court.  My question is how? What facts does FIBA have to support such a position?

In fact, many Muslims, and non-Muslims such as myself, have criticized the rule as discriminatory and Human Rights Watch challenged FIBA to prove that the headscarves are unsafe. “In the case of basketball, it’s difficult to see how a ban on the headscarf is anything other than an unnecessary restriction on the players’ rights to religious freedom and personal autonomy,” the organization said in a statement.

Human Rights Watch, along with a others, are pushing for FIBA to follow FIFA’s lead wherein, beginning last March, it has lifted its ban on religiously mandated headgear.

The ironic part of all of this is that the motto of the 2014 Asian Games is “Diversity Shines Here.” Apparently, however, FIBA is not bending any rules to live up to the creed.

A federal judge decided not to consolidate two cases alleging the NCAA’s previous ban on multiyear scholarships and limits on football scholarships are illegal. By way of background, as of 2012, the NCAA gives colleges and universities the option to offer multiyear scholarships to all athletes. This amended a previous rule instilled in 1973, which only allowed for one year renewable scholarships.imagesFormer Gardner-Webb University quarterback, John Rock, filed a lawsuit against the NCAA in 2012 claiming these rules concerning the duration and limits of football scholarships are in violation of both state and federal antitrust laws. On August 28, 2014, a similar lawsuit was filed on behalf of former Colorado State kicker, Durrell Chamorro.

In an attempt to consolidate the Rock and Chamorro cases, the NCAA objected because the Chamorro matter “suffers from certain legal defects not present in the Rock complaint.” U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson agreed with the NCAA and ruled the cases would not be consolidated.

Magnus-Stinson wrote that there are “material” differences between the Rock and Chamorro cases, noting that Chamorro pleads two classes and Rock pleads one class. Chamorro’s attempted class requires players to have received a “full scholarship, grant or tuition discount,” and Rock’s attempted class does not require receiving a full scholarship.

Interestingly from a legal point of view is that the Chamorro complaint, in an attempt to prove its antitrust claim, argues that the NCAA cannot use amateurism or competitive balance as procompetitive justifications for limiting the number of football scholarships. If competitive balance is determined to be a legitimate justification, Chamorro’s lawsuit offered five less-restrictive alternatives:

  • The NCAA could require revenue sharing among schools.
  • The NCAA could replace its current roster restrictions with new ones that actually increase competitive balance.
  • The NCAA could impose limits on facility spending, instead of permitting major schools to spend “tens of millions of dollars on facilities that lesser schools cannot hope to imitate.”
  • The NCAA could impose limits on recruiting budgets.
  • The NCAA could impose restrictions on alumni donations to the athletics department.

This case is in its infancy, but the legal arguments in the area of antitrust are getting interesting.