By way of background for the uninitiated, Balogun is in the process of suing the NCAA for unexpectedly revoking his eligibility a few weeks back related to issues arising from his participation in a semi-pro football league. At issue in the case has been whether or not Balogun played in the league after his 21st birthday. If so, the 25-year-old linebacker would be ineligible this season.
Admittedly, Homerism is no legal scholar. However, something about the Association's version of "due process" as depicted in Balogun's petition to the Cleveland County District Court seems a little off to me. The timeline of the case:
-May 2008: NCAA reviews Balogun's involvement with the North American Football League and clears him to play at Oklahoma as a junior.
-January 2009: Intrepid college football gumshoe Thom Brenneman reveals on national TV during the BCS title game broadcast that Balogun played semi-pro football. (Shows what spending five minutes with Tim Tebow can do for you.) Although this should come as a surprise to no one at NCAA headquarters, seeing as Balogun's eligibility already has been certified, the amateurism authorities decide they want another bite at the apple.
-March 2009: With its balls firmly trapped in the Association's vice grip thanks to Kelvin Sampson, Rhett Bomar and J.D. Quinn, the OU compliance department rounds up one of Balogun's former assistant coaches, who states he thinks Balogun played after his 21st birthday. Meanwhile, OU also hands over affidavits from Balogun and his former team's owner in which both contradict the coach's recollection. Plus, the league's ex-commissioner tells OU compliance that records show Balogun didn't play in the league during the time in question and that the information being presented against Balogun--internet box scores--is unreliable.
-July 2009: Balogun appears before NCAA investigators yet again to discuss his status.
-August 2009: Balogun is ruled ineligible.
(For proof of just how stupid this entire scenario is in the first place, note that the conference's former commissioner says Balogun never received any remuneration for playing. In fact, Balogun himself had to pay a referee fee just to participate.)
Aside from the fact that Mike is apparently a common nickname for "Ademola," I found this passage to be possibly the most interesting part of the brief:
"Despite being provided with (information contrary to the claim that Balogun played semi-pro football after the age of 21), Defendants [the NCAA] continued to furtively investigate Balogun's amateur status and certification for several months without advising Balogun of the existence of the investigation and without advising him as to the witnesses interviewed or the materials gathered during the investigation. In addition, at no time during this investigation did Defendants advise Balogun that he had the right to have his interests represented during this investigation."
OK, for purposes of this discussion, let's set aside the bizarre standards of proof the NCAA appears to be using in Balogun's case. Instead, let's focus strictly on the Association's process of adjudication, which looks like it would be best described as "railroading." Stealing a page out of the Gestapo's playbook, it appears as though justice NCAA-style means conducting ongoing covert investigations of college athletes, denying the accused access to the evidence against them and ignoring the principle of double (and even triple) jeopardy.
Today came word that the NCAA is working with Balogun's lawyer to potentially achieve an out-of-court resolution. I hope it works out for Balogun's sake, but you can't help wondering if the Association would benefit from having its day in court.