The Schmooze: Ok, so not everything went perfectly yesterday. But, pretty much every game that didn’t work out came right down to the wire and could have gone either way. Anyways, on to today prognostications:

1. #3 Syracuse v. #14 Stephen F. Austin - Syracuse. Jonny Flynn will carry the Orange.
2. #8 Oklahoma State v. #9 Tennessee - Oklahoma State. Toss up game. I’ll take the higher seed.
3. #6 Marquette v. #11 Utah State - Marquette. Despite some key injuries, Marquette will make it through.
4. #3 Kansas v. #14 North Dakota State - Kansas. Major upset potential here. NDS has tons of experience and has had the same starting lineup the entire season (1 of only 3 teams in college basketball to do that). I still see Bill Self making the right adjustments to get Kansas through. Expect a close game.
5. #6 Arizona State v. #11 Temple - Arizona State. James Harden anyone?
6. #1 Pitt v. #16 East Tennessee State - Pitt. Dajuan Blair will be too much inside.
7. #3 Missouri v. #14 Cornell - Missouri. No Ivy league teams are getting far this year.
8. #3 West Virginia v. #11 Dayton - West Virginia. West Virginia has been strong lately. Starting to take advantage of their athletes and mismatches.
9. #1 Louisville v. #16 Morehead State - Louisville. More-head-state…how old am I?
10. #5 Utah v. #12 Arizona - Arizona. Zona has the talent…do they have the focus?
11. #7 Boston College v. #10 USC - Boston College. If BC can hang with Duke and UNC, they can take care of USC.
12. #4 Xavier v. #13 Portland State - Xavier. Xavier has the experience.
13. #8 Ohio State v. #9 Siena - Siena. Another toss up. I think since Butler lost yesterday, Siena is destined to win. One of those teams has to get through.
14. #4 Wake Forest v. #13 Cleveland State - Wake Forest. I like the ACC this year.
15. #2 Michigan State v. #15 Robert Morris - Michigan State. I don’t trust schools named after people.
16. #5 Florida State v. #12 Wisconsin - Florida State. Tony Douglas can drop 40 points in any given game. Wisconsin can’t score (but they can defend). If Douglas breaks 20 points the Noles will win.

That’s it folks! If you think my picks are nuts (or just that I am nuts) let me know…I’m always open to getting hit with some knowledge.

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Schmooze: Here we go, it is tourney time! Below are my picks for today’s 16 games. If you want to win your bracket…follow me:

1. #8 LSU v. #9 Butler - Butler. I’ll take a solid mid-major over a mediocore SEC team. Especially since the SEC was very weak this year.
2. #2 Memphis v. CS Northrige - Memphis. CS who?
3. #8 BYU v. #9 Texas A&M - BYU. A&M has more talent, but BYU is much more fundamentally sound and makes less mistakes.
4. #5 Purdue v. #12 Northern Iowa - Purdue. Purdue is on a hot streak after cleaning up in the Big 10 tournament.
5. #1 UNC v. #16 Radford - UNC. No way a Roy Williams coached team will lose to a 16 seed.
6. #7 California v. #10 Maryland - Maryland. If Vasquez can get hot for Maryland, they can definitely take this one.
7. #1 UConn v. #16 Chatanooga - UConn. UConn will be the first #1 to fall, but it won’t be in this game.
8. #4 Washington v. #13 Miss St. - Washington. I think Washington will surprise a lot of people in this tournament. I’m also not buying any SEC team this year.
9. #7 Texas v. #10 Minnesota - Texas. When is the last time Minnesota beat Texas in anything?
10. #7 Clemson v. #10 Michigan - Clemson. This one is a real toss up. I think Clemson has a slight edge in athletic ability.
11. #3 Villanova v. #14 American - Villanova. Scottie Reynolds will make or break Nova in this tournanment.
12. #4 Gonzaga v. #13 Akron - Gonzaga. Mark Few is too good of a coach to let his team lose in the first round.
13. #2 Duke v. #15 Binghampton - Duke. Duke’s suffocating D will lead them to victory over Binghampton. Their 3 point shooting will determine their fate in the rest of the tournament.
14. #2 Oklahoma v. #15 Morgan St. - Oklahoma. Blake Griffin is a beast…and the no. 1 pick in the upcoming NBA draft.
15. #6 UCLA v. #11 VCU - VCU. I know this a trendy upset pick, but it is trendy for a reason. Eric Maynor v. Darren Collison should be one of the best first round matchups.
16. #5 Illinois v. #12 Western Kentucky - Illinois. WK is a popular upset pick here, but I think these teams are even…so I’m giving the edge to the Illini’s superior coaching.

Stay tuned for my picks for tomorrow’s first round games!

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Below is a great post from Howard Wasserman over at Sports Law Blog. The article discusses the recent decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court holding that cheerleading is a ‘contact sport” (see my previous post on the decision here). Specifically, Wasserman contemplates what the court’s holding could mean for Title IX. Enjoy.

Title IX and the definition of sport

Having read the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Noffke v. Bakke and Marc’s ATL post on its Title IX implications, let me weigh in.

First, the court relied on a dictionary to define sport as an “activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs.” This is, to my mind, far too broad a definition–more on that in a minute. The court also found that the statutory requirement that there be “physical contact” in the activity applied to more than aggressive physical contact with the opponent. It included any physical contact, with opponent or teammate, incidental or not. That seems right to me, for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post on the case–a lot of things that must be considered sport and that surely were intended to be covered by this statute (which was enacted to limit liability for sports injuries resulting from simply negligence) almost never involve direct contact with an opponent (e.g., baseball, tennis, volleyball, track, swimming).

Second, the court rejected any requirement that something be competitive in order to be a sport. And that actually makes irrelevant what I consider the central element of a meaningful definition of sport–objective scoring (as opposed to “judging”) and objective determinations of winners. The court’s main justification for this was the inconsistency it would produce–something would or would not be a sport depending on what the team was doing and when–whether it was practice or a game or whether the cheerleaders were leading cheers at a basketball game on Friday or participating in a competition on Saturday. This argument strikes me as silly. It would be rational enough to recognize that a team (say, the boys’ basketball team) has as its central goal or purpose to engage in competition, but that practice (in which score may not be kept) is necessary to achieve that purpose. Thus the Wisconsin statute should provide immunity for all activities related to that purpose of competing in games on Saturday, including practicing on Thursday. Same with che

This also is why I somewhat depart from Marc’s analysis. He makes much of the difference between those squads that engage in competitive cheerleading and those that merely are the “spirit squad” (leading cheers at games). But if competition is irrelevant to the definition of sport (assuming the Department of Education were to adopt the same definition for Title IX), it also is irrelevant whether a team engages in competitive cheering or spirit. Both are sports–activities involving physical exertion and skill, governed by a set of rules or customs. And what else falls within that broad definition? Dance team? Yes. Marching band? Why not. And with no requirement of competition or scoring, much less objective scoring, we do not even have to reach whether a particular band or team participates in competitions or not to define the activity as sport.

And that makes the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s definition of sport problematic for us in Title IX. For one thing, we have to think about Title IX not only as to NCAA participation, but also for participation in high-schools and middle-schools, all of which are bound by Title IX to provide athletic opportunities to females. In fact, these schools have the real burden and obligation, because this is where a truly substantial number of girls will be able to take advantage of opportunities to play sports–they have the time, they are more likely to have the skill level (compared with the ability at the collegiate level), and the greater number of schools nationwide means greater opportunities for more girls. But any definition of sport that includes band, dance, and cheer–all worthwhile activities, to be sure–potentially undermines Title IX by helping schools out of their obligation to provide meaningful sporting opportunities for women. If a school can satisfy its Title IX obligations through band and cheerleading (activities in which women historically have participated in large (even predominant) numbers), it has no incentive to also provide new opportunities for women, such as lacrosse or tennis. Band and cheerleading and dance keep the school in Title IX compliance because schools can point to those as existing opportunities for female participation, without having to add anything new.

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Cheerleaders in action

The Schmooze: A Wisconsin court has ruled that cheerleading is a “contact” sport. The significance of the ruling is that it prevents, at least in Wisconsin, people injured during cheerleading to sue when the injury stems from the actions (or as in this case, inaction) of a fellow participant. Though I agree with the decision that cheerleading is a contact sport, I feel that in cheerleading, as opposed to other sports like football and baseball, it would be harder to tell when someone has caused an injury simply by mistake or lack of skill, as opposed to purposeful, willful, or reckless behavior. It will be interesting to see if other states follow Wisconsin’s lead.

Wisconsin court rules high school cheerleading is a contact sport

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — High school cheerleading is a contact sport and therefore its participants cannot be sued for accidentally causing injuries, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a case being closely watched in the cheerleading world.

The court ruled that a former high school cheerleader cannot sue a teammate who failed to stop her fall while she was practicing a stunt. The court also said the injured cheerleader cannot sue her school district.

The National Cheer Safety Foundation said the decision is the first of its kind in the nation.

At issue in the case was whether cheerleaders qualify for immunity under a Wisconsin law that prevents participants in contact sports from suing each other for unintentional injuries.

It does not spell out which sports are contact sports. The District 4 Court of Appeals ruled last year cheerleading didn’t qualify because there’s no contact between opposing teams.

But all seven members of the Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to overturn that decision. In the opinion, Justice Annette Ziegler said cheerleading involves “a significant amount of physical contact between the cheerleaders.” As an example, she cited stunts in which cheerleaders are tossed in the air.

The lawsuit was brought by Brittany Noffke, who was a varsity cheerleader at Holmen High School in western Wisconsin. While practicing a stunt in 2004, Noffke fell backward off the shoulders of another cheerleader and suffered a serious head injury.

She sued a 16-year-old male teammate who was supposed to be her spotter but failed to catch her; the school district; and the district’s insurer.

Ziegler rejected Noffke’s argument that “contact sports” should mean only aggressive sports such as football and hockey. She wrote they should include any sport that that includes “physical contact between persons.”

“I think it’s groundbreaking, but I’m disappointed in the result,” said attorney Tracy Tool, who represented Noffke.

Tool would not elaborate on Noffke’s injuries or say if she has fully recovered.

The decision means cheerleaders can be sued only for acting recklessly. The court said Noffke’s teammate only made a mistake or showed a lack of skill. As for the school district, Ziegler said it cannot be sued for the coach’s behavior under a Wisconsin law that shields government agencies from lawsuits for the actions of employees.

Many observers had warned that families of cheerleaders would be forced to take out big insurance policies if the lower court decision stood.

Because of the increasingly difficult stunts, injuries among high school cheerleaders are a problem. Researchers at the University of North Carolina have found that two-thirds of the roughly 100 cases of “catastrophic” sports injuries among high school girls since 1982 have involved cheerleading.

More than 95,000 female students and 2,100 male students take part in high school cheerleading every year, according to the North Carolina researchers.

Most state athletic governing bodies do not regulate cheerleading. Those that do make a distinction between “competitive spirit squads” and sideline cheerleading, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations. The group writes voluntary rules for cheerleading that do not have the force of law.

“There’s a lot of gray area about whether it’s a sport or an activity,” said spokesman Bruce Howard.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Schmooze: Over the years, the cases of football players dying from heat-related circumstances has remained consistent. Every year there is at least 1 case of a player succumbing to the conditions during a grueling practice run by hard-nosed coaches. This is the first time that one of these coaches may actually be held accountable. If nothing else, this should prompt schools, counties, states, etc. to institute strict guidelines for when practices are allowed. I myself grew up playing football in the heat of South Florida. I eventually turned my attention to other sports because I had no desire to practice in full pads in 100 degree weather. It was cruel and unusual punishment. It still is.

High school coach charged in death of football player
By Brett Barrouquere
Associated Press / January 23, 2009

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A Kentucky high school football coach was charged yesterday with reckless homicide in the death of a player who collapsed at practice as temperatures soared.

A grand jury indicted David Jason Stinson in the death of Pleasure Ridge Park offensive lineman Max Gilpin, Jefferson County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dave Stengel said. Stinson was directing practice on Aug. 20 when the heat index reached 94 degrees and the 15-year-old sophomore collapsed.

The youth had a temperature of 107 degrees when he arrived at the hospital, authorities said. He died three days later.

While deaths from heat exposure in athletics happen occasionally, charges are rare. The reckless homicide charge means grand jurors did not find that Stinson’s actions were intentional or malicious, Stengel said, but that “a reasonable man should have realized something like this could have occurred.”

Stinson’s lawyer, Alex Dathorne, said the coach maintains his innocence and looks forward to telling the whole story.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Schmooze: Here is a very interesting case out of North Carolina that flies in the face of established tort law as it relates to spectator sports.

Posted on December 16, 2008 by Mack Sperling

All lawyers know, from first year torts class, that if you are hit by a baseball at a baseball game, you are unlikely to have any claim against the operator of the baseball stadium.  There’s a well developed body of law to that effect.

Today in Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, Inc., the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the rules of the game may be different when it’s a soccer game being played.  The Allred case is apparently one of only three cases in the country that deals with injuries suffered by spectators from soccer balls kicked into the stands.

The Plaintiff in Allred was attending a women’s professional soccer game at State Capital Soccer Park in Cary, North Carolina.  She was sitting in the stands behind one of the goals, and was hit in the head by a ball during warmups, when “many balls were directed towards the nets in a relatively short period of time.”  Op. at 4..  She suffered “substantial head injuries.”   Op. at 2.

The trial court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Plaintiff’s claim of negligence, but the Court of Appeals reversed.  Judge Steelman began the unanimous opinion of the Court by observing that there were no reported cases in North Carolina involving injuries to spectators at soccer games, but that the cases involving baseball games “have been uniformly decided against the spectator, either on the basis that the stadium operator was not negligent or that the spectator assumed the risk of being hit by a baseball.”  Op. at 5.

The Court’s analysis then turned to two issues: the duty owned by the sports facility operator to the spectator, and whether the Plaintiff had assumed the risk by attending the game.

On the point of duty, it is established that an operator of a stadium or arena has “no duty to protect a lawful visitor against dangers which are either known to him or so obvious and apparent that they reasonably may be expected to be discovered.”  Op. at. 7. In baseball cases, Judge Steelman said “it has been accepted as a matter of law that a patron’s being struck in the stands by an errant baseball was an inherent and obvious risk of attending the game.”  Op. at 8.

But that’s not necessarily true of soccer games, probably because soccer doesn’t have the long and established history in the United States Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In honor of the start of the NFL season…I present a list of my favorite football names (in no particular order):

• L.P. Ladouceur
• Cory Lekkerkerker
• Tank Johnson
• Felton Huggins
• Reggie Corner
• Madison Hedgecock
• Osi Umenyiora
• R.W. McQuarters
• Boomer Grigsby
• Junior Glymph
• Titus Adams
• Colt Brennan
• Rock Cartwright
• Erasmus James
• D’Brickashaw Ferguson
• Ebenezer Ekuban
• Elvis Dumervil
• Boss Bailey
• Champ Bailey
• J.T. O’Sullivan
• Jeb Putzier
• Adimchinobe Echemandu
• Pisa Tinoisamoa
• Gosder Cherilus
• Chad Ocho Cinco
• Frostee Rucker
• AJ Hawk
• Syndric Steptoe
• Leger Douzable
• Orpheus Roye
• Noriaki Kinoshita
• Quinn Pitcock
• Deuce McAllister
• Alge Crumpler
• Tuff Harris

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

From ESPN.com:

Former Atlanta Hawks swingman Josh Childress is leaving the NBA for Europe. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on its Web site that Childress, a restricted free agent, has signed a three-year contract with Olympiakos of Greece.

Yahoo.com reported on Monday that Childress, who averaged 11.8 points and 4.9 rebounds last season, had an offer on the table from Olympiakos for more than $20 million over three years. But Hawks general manager Rick Sund told the AJC on Monday that the four-year pro was just exploring his options.

The newspaper reported Monday the Hawks had a deal on the table worth nearly $36 million, with a first-year salary in excess of the mid-level exception of $5.6 million.

While the Hawks could match any offer from another NBA team for Childress, they do not have the ability to match an offer from a European team.

The Schmooze: Another example of how the declining value of the American dollar continues to affect all parts of our society. Money aside though…this is a good move for Childress and could be the start of a trend. He will get paid, will have to play less games, will be on a good team, and can potentially be one of the best players in all of Europe. Just as importantly, Childress is mature enough to handle a move to a foreign country. Now I’m not sure if we will ever see players the level of say Kobe Bryant, Lebron James , etc. taking their games to Europe over lucrative NBA offers…but for players that are right around that “almost-but-not-quite All-Star” level, why not go play in Europe and be a big fish in a smaller pond? The money is good, the level of competition is high (not NBA level…but if you took some teams from Spain, Italy and Greece…they would win a ton of games playing against NBA teams), and you can gain some European culture. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A quick schmooze on one of the greatest sporting events of all time (yes…not just one of the greatest tennis matches of all time…it was one of the greatest sporting events of all time). It is so rare to see two of the all time greats in a sport go head to head. Come to think of it…when do we ever get to see it outside of tennis? If you don’t count team sports like football and basketball…what else is there? Golf? An argument could be made for golf, but here is the difference; in golf you are are playing against yourself and the course more than an opponent. In tennis your play is directly influenced by the play of your opponent. They are linked. Today we witnessed two of the all time great tennis players (Federer has been established as one of the GOAT for years now and anyone who thinks Nadal isn’t there already, especially after today, is just kidding themselves) going head to head and playing a match worthy of their distinctions. It was a brilliant match. Here are my quick thoughts on it:

- Federer lost it more than Nadal won it (though not by much). How many put-away volleys did Federer just dump into the net? How many 2nd service returns did he dump into the net? Federer gave this match away. Against any other player he could have gotten away with all those unforced errors. Not against Nadal.

- Nadal is an absolute freak of nature! I’ve been playing tennis nearly my entire life and I’ve never seen anyone hit with as much power, spin and precision as Nadal. The angles he can hit are absurd. I’m also pretty sure he is on steroids. Seriously…would anyone object to a little random drug testing? I don’t think so. What makes him even more sick is that HE IS RIGHT HANDED!!! It’s true. He is right handed and plays lefty. He is just a genetic freak. Genetic freakishness aside though, he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his mental determination. He hardly ever makes mental mistakes and he withstood an onslaught from the 5-time defending champion.

- Building on the last point…Nadal OWNS Federer. He literally owns him. Somewhere in a safety deposit box he has a pink slip for a Rodger Federer. Did you see the look on Federer’s face after the match? Absolutely crushed. At this level of tennis, the mental aspect is almost more important than the physical aspect…and mentally…Nadal has destroyed Federer’s soul. I was half expecting Federer to announce his retirement after the match. It will take a monumental effort for Federer to ever play Nadal again and truly believe he has a chance to win.

- Why can’t Federer take a page out of Steffi Graf’s game plan and learn how to hit a slice backhand on a regular basis? Nadal’s key to success every time he plays Federer is to pick on his backhand. He will hit 30 straight shots to his backhand. I’m convinced that if Federer hit like 20% more slice backhands instead of his normal flat/topsin backhand…he would make a lot less unforced errors on that side and thus win more points.

- 5 sets and Federer still couldn’t figure out Nadal’s serve. If he could have converted just 1 more of the ton of break points he had…the result would have been different.

- Am I crazy…or would a Nadal/Federer team be the most rediculous doubles tandem to ever play tennis?

Tweet This Post 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!