http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/ Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:23:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-139165 Oliver v. NCAA Ends in Settlement | Think Law Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:33:02 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-139165 [...] The NCAA intended to appeal the decision, but the appeal won’t happen as the NCAA and Oliver worked out an undisclosed $750,000 financial settlement late last week. While Oliver will receive money from the NCAA, the NCAA’s rules will remain in place. Whether another player challenges those rules remains to be seen. For more, see Sports Agent Blog’s Darren Heitner’s The End of the Andy Oliver Affair. [...] [...] The NCAA intended to appeal the decision, but the appeal won’t happen as the NCAA and Oliver worked out an undisclosed $750,000 financial settlement late last week. While Oliver will receive money from the NCAA, the NCAA’s rules will remain in place. Whether another player challenges those rules remains to be seen. For more, see Sports Agent Blog’s Darren Heitner’s The End of the Andy Oliver Affair. [...]

]]> http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-138528 Jason Wolf Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:55:34 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-138528 I find it interesting that the NCAA itself is scouring the Internets to see what people are saying about this case. Even if the commenter is just an NCAA flunky and not a decision maker, we have to assume that the NCAA knows that it's only a matter of time before this rule is challenged again, and this time it will be defeated. I find it interesting that the NCAA itself is scouring the Internets to see what people are saying about this case. Even if the commenter is just an NCAA flunky and not a decision maker, we have to assume that the NCAA knows that it’s only a matter of time before this rule is challenged again, and this time it will be defeated.

]]> http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-138524 Darren Heitner Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:57:59 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-138524 Haha, thanks a lot Mike. Haha, thanks a lot Mike.

]]> http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-138522 Mike McCall Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:54:06 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-138522 Nice work Darren. You're consistently one of the (very) few people I don't have to double-check behind when I read them. And beautiful pull on that a-hole's IP address. pwn3d Nice work Darren. You’re consistently one of the (very) few people I don’t have to double-check behind when I read them. And beautiful pull on that a-hole’s IP address. pwn3d

]]> http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-138501 Darren Heitner Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:12:46 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-138501 What's most interesting about your comment, "A", is that your IP address reveals that you are from ncaafw.ncaa.org. Now to your statement. It seems as if my original post has caused some confusion. If you read it carefully, I wrote that the rule (yes, I am talking about the original NCAA rule) once again has the force of law behind it. So while I continue to comment about law before I am actually able to practice it, perhaps you should be more polite in your comments and thoroughly read my posts before trying to insult me. What’s most interesting about your comment, “A”, is that your IP address reveals that you are from ncaafw.ncaa.org. Now to your statement. It seems as if my original post has caused some confusion. If you read it carefully, I wrote that the rule (yes, I am talking about the original NCAA rule) once again has the force of law behind it. So while I continue to comment about law before I am actually able to practice it, perhaps you should be more polite in your comments and thoroughly read my posts before trying to insult me.

]]> http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-138500 A Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:51:13 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-138500 Actually, the judge's order in the liability part of the trial was vacated upon settlement. Therefore, the judge's voiding of the NCAA rule does not have the force of law behind it. Try reading the entire settlement and practicing law before commenting on it. Actually, the judge’s order in the liability part of the trial was vacated upon settlement. Therefore, the judge’s voiding of the NCAA rule does not have the force of law behind it. Try reading the entire settlement and practicing law before commenting on it.

]]> http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-138497 Darren Heitner Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:37:09 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-138497 In fact: "However, that rule now has the force of law behind it once again, now that Andy has settled with the NCAA." In fact: “However, that rule now has the force of law behind it once again, now that Andy has settled with the NCAA.”

]]> http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-138496 Darren Heitner Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:35:56 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-138496 When do I say otherwise? When do I say otherwise?

]]> http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-andy-oliver-affair/#comment-138495 Will Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:17:26 +0000 http://www.sportsagentblog.com/?p=7225#comment-138495 Come on, Darren, you're in law school. The decision in the Ohio court isn't binding anywhere other than that district in Ohio. If another player brings suit in California, that court has no obligation to follow that precedent. Come on, Darren, you’re in law school. The decision in the Ohio court isn’t binding anywhere other than that district in Ohio. If another player brings suit in California, that court has no obligation to follow that precedent.

]]>