NCAA Cases

Question 1

Hall v. NCAA
Facts
Dispute

Answer 1

Facts:
-plaintiff: 6’7” AA who aspires to play bball
-graduated from St. Mel HS (private, catholic hs)
-highly recruited, including Bradley U; currently a fr at Bradley
Dispute:
-dispute over 4 classes plaintiff took in hs
-microsoft office, microsoft works, scripture, and ethics/morality
-inclusion or exclusion of 4 classes is critical to court’s analysis of NCAA’s decision of plaintiff’s ineligibility to play D1 bball

Question 2

Hall v. NCAA
NCAA Eligibility Requirements
“Core Courses”

Answer 2

NCAA Eligibility Requirements:
-“qualifier” for D1: at least 13 hs “core courses” with specified min. GPA
-min. score on SAT or ACT
“Core Courses”:
-“cores”: academic courses offering fund. instructional components in specified areas of study
-at least 75% of instruction content must be in one or more regular areas of study
-student must also take “additional core courses” in at least one of the following:
-foreign language, computer science, social science
-religion: must be non-doctrinal
-plaintiff’s course: Growing in Christian Morality
-computer must go beyond keyboarding and word processing
-clearinghouse def: at least 75% of instruction goes beyond keyboarding and word processing AND must be in areas such as develop. and implemnt. of spreadsheets, networking, DBM, and computer programming
-Microsoft syllabus goals: (1) devel. keyboarding skill, (2) understand basic functions
-court finds NCAA correct in determ. 4 courses dont fulfill req. or core classes

Question 3

Ross v. Creighton
Where
Background

Answer 3

Where:
-7th circuit, Illinois
Background:
-plaintiff filed suit against defendant for (1) negligence and (2) breach of contract arising from defendant’s failure to edu him
-plaintiff was from academically disadvantaged background
-to get plaintiff to play, defendant assured sufficient tutoring so he would receive a meaningful edu while at creighton
-after creighton, plaintiff had the language skills of a 4th grader, reading skills of a 7th grader
-suffered “major depressive episode” and barricaded himself in motel and threw furniture out window

Question 4

Ross v. Creighton University

District Court Proceedings

Answer 4

Negligence:
1. edu malpractice
2. defendant negligently inflicted emotional distress upon plaintiff
3. “neg. addmission”: allow recovery when institution admits, and then does not adequately assist an unprepared student
Breach of Contract:
-can have college claim, but not anything neg. claims were based on
-failing to provide adequate tutoring
-breached to pay for college edu

Question 5

Ross v. Creighton

Analysis

Answer 5

Negligence claims:

1. edu malpractice: policy concerns against
   
   • lack of satisfact. standing of care to eval. an educator
   • inherent uncertainties exist about cause and nature of damages
   • flood of litigation
   • threatens to embroil courts into overseeing day-to-day operations of schools
   • affirm DC’s dismissal of theory
2. neg. addmission:
   
   • reject claim for many of the above reasons
3. wasnt able to prove negligence, so no negligence damage
   - plaintiff and defendant settled for $30k