NCAA v. Yeo: Does the Law Lose its Meaning When Fairness is Ignored?

Eric McErlain of Off Wing has an engaging take on NCAA v. Yeo, which we discussed earlier today:

Can somebody tell me where there might be a scintilla of fairness or justice in this kind of decision? I know competing in intercollegiate athletics are a privilege, not a right, but just whose interest was served by such a non-sensical ruling (on the part of the NCAA, not the court), especially after Yeo declined to participate in NCAA competition for a full year?

His post, entitled "The Monster that is the NCAA," generates interesting reader comments, and be sure to also check out the excellent reader comments generated from our post below.

Although NCAA v. Yeo may be a correct ruling by the Texas Supreme Court, it begs the question of why have laws when the "correct" result is so profoundly unfair? Along those lines, notes McErlain,

As I've written before, if an athlete has to sit out of competition for a year if they transfer, then it is only fair that same rule apply to coaches and university administrators as well. But like Congress, the mandarins of Kansas City wouldn't dream of holding themselves to the same standards of behavior that they demand of the athletes they regulate.

Posted in: