WVU Hires Former Harvard Law Student

.... as the Wide Receivers Coach.

Time for a College Football Playoff?

It'll take a collective antitrust lawsuit for that. Haven't we been down this road before?

House Subcommittee Approves College Football Playoff Legislation

We assumed it had to happen eventually. . . . From ESPN:

A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters on its plate. . . . The bill, which faces long odds of becoming law, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff. The measure passed by voice vote in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, with one audible "no," from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga.

Doubt this goes anywhere.

Trademarking Boise State's Football Field?

The Boise State Broncos are taking the college football world by storm. Currently ranked 6th in the nation, the Broncos have an outside chance at contending for a national title. It seems, however, that Boise State will also be taking the legal world by storm, as the university is attempting to trademark its signature blue football field. Harboring hopes for both a national championship and a successful trademark registration, will Boise State be disappointed?

It will likely come as a surprise to many that Boise State is not the only college team with a blue field. The University of New Haven, which restarted its division II football program after a five year absence, also uses a blue turf. According to a New Haven Register article, Boise State has recently contacted University of New Haven officials to express concern over the similarity of the two fields. Rachel Bickerton, Boise State’s director of trademark enforcement and licensing, issued a statement to the Register summarizing the university’s position:

Since 1986, the blue field has been an iconic symbol for Boise State University and Boise. It is recognized near and far as the home of Broncos. We consider the blue turf to be part of our identity, and we place great value on that uniqueness.

Trademarking the color of a football field seems a bit silly, but is it legally practical? Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination therefrom, and, in fact, the Supreme Court has held that there is nothing preventing a color from meeting trademark requirements. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prod. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 172-73 (1995). In Qualitex, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the green-gold color of a manufacturer’s dry cleaning press pads could be registered as a trademark. Id. at 161-62. It was explained that a color may receive trademark protection only upon a showing of a secondary meaning. Id. at 163-64. The Court reasoned that "over time, customers may come to treat a particular color on a product or its packaging . . . as signifying a brand. And, if so, that color would have come to identify and distinguish the goods--i.e. 'to 'indicate' their 'source'--much in the way that descriptive words on a product . . . can come to indicate a product's origin.'" Id. at 163.

I have no background in trademark law, and I invite our faithful readers, who are undoubtedly more knowledgeable than I on the subject, to comment. Has Boise State’s blue field acquired a secondary meaning? I would venture to say that it has because, in my opinion, the consuming public associates a blue turf with Boise State football.

In summary, then, Boise State may be satisfied with the outcome of its trademark registration. On the other hand, a national championship is likely out of the picture due to a weak strength of schedule. But rejoice Boise State fans! The mere prospect for a possible BCS bid and a successful trademark registration isn’t so bad, is it?

The Effect of the FOIA on College Athletics

During the NCAA tournament last month, Yahoo Sports exposed alleged recruiting violations at the University of Connecticut. The
Yahoo investigation relied heavily on phone records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. UConn, being a public university, is required by the FOIA to make records available to any person based simply on a request which reasonably describes the record.

The FOIA benefits our democracy by providing essential transparency in our administrative state. And, clearly, the FOIA is not to blame for the alleged recruiting violations at UConn. If the basketball team committed the acts alleged in the report, then they deserve any sanction handed down.

But, what effect will the FOIA have on the future of college athletics? Adrian Wojnarowski and Dan Wetzel, the Yahoo Sports writers, made it rather clear that they plan on exposing the “agent-as-recruiter” problem in college basketball. If this “agent-as-recruiter” problem is as pervasive as Yahoo claims, it may end up being the second-coming of Major League Baseball’s steroid scandal.

Needless to say, private universities (e.g., Duke, Syracuse, et al.) are not susceptible to FOIA requests. Consequently, I can’t help but wonder whether the FOIA will ultimately provide private universities with a recruiting edge. If these recruiting violations are as widespread as suggested, should private universities really be insulated from investigations? As one site commented: “Easy, low hanging fruit at these public universities.” This may be true.

What do you think? Are public universities disproportionately burdened by the FOIA? If so, does it warrant a response by the NCAA?