For those still trying to figure out how giving $6 K to a foreign kid who you wanted to play basektball for you cannot be grounds for immediate termination, check out Seth Davis’ info on the contract that Jim O’Brien had with Ohio St. (a banner day for Jason in Columbus).

You might wonder how a coach who has brought NCAA scrutiny on his school could successfully sue said school for millions. The answer is that Ohio State negotiated itself a lousy deal. Flush with affection for O’Brien after he took the Buckeyes to the Final Four, Ohio State rewarded him with a six-year deal that not only paid him $1.2 million annually but also severely limited the reasons OSU could fire O’Brien for cause. The contract specifically stated that there would have to be a finding of guilt by the NCAA — not just a serious allegation — before Ohio State could cut the coach loose. The deal even went so far as to outline a scenario in which O’Brien could keep his job in the face of an ongoing NCAA investigation.

Former Ohio State athletic director Andy Geiger testified during the trial that the notion of keeping O’Brien on as coach after the alleged violations were disclosed would be “untenable.” Judge Clark ruled that Ohio State “bargained away its right to immediately dismiss plaintiff simply because of the inconvenience occasioned by a protracted NCAA investigation.” In other words, you may have signed a bad deal, but you still have to abide by it.

I’d make some jokes about the Ohio government’s corruption and campaign contributions’ direct relationship with which lawyers get hired, but I suspect most don’t care and wouldn’t know about it.

Actually that may be small potatoes compared to the latest anti-trust/class-action lawsuit filed against the NCAA and schools.

Now it has come to this: A federal antitrust lawsuit filed late Friday in Los Angeles seeks to prohibit the NCAA from telling member colleges they cannot offer athletic scholarships up to the full cost of attendance — and could expose the NCAA to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for past wrongs.

The class-action claim was brought on behalf of Division I-A football players and major-college basketball players, whose programs generate the overwhelming amount of revenue that flows into college athletic departments. Under antitrust law, any current scholarship athlete, as well as any player in the past four years, qualifies as a plaintiff.

The suit does not list a damage amount but is structured in a way that suggests the NCAA pay a heavy price should the court find that the association acted illegally in its capping of scholarship costs. The lawsuit applies to 144 colleges, so the 20,000 or so affected athletes would have been shorted a potential $117 million, an aggregate figure that represents the gap between the grant-in-aid and the official cost of attendance over the past four years.

Damages get trebled under antitrust law, pushing the potential penalty to $351 million.

The NCAA limits scholarships to the cost of school, books, food and shelter. It does not cover travel expenses, phone usage and anything else that usually gets calculated into the cost of attending school. Roughly $2,500 per year.

In the past, the NCAA has taken the position that it needs to control all terms of the athletic scholarship in order to preserve its notions of amateurism and what it calls “the unique character” of college sports. Some universities also claim they cannot afford to give an extra $2,500 to athletes.

In 2003, though, [NCAA President, Myles] Brand came out in favor of the proposal, suggesting that the additional funds could be drawn from the NCAA’s 11-year, $6 billion television contract with CBS.

“We should provide student-athletes with the full cost of attendance,” he said at the time.

The NCAA membership subsequently declined to move on his recommendation.

Unlike under Brand’s idea, the plaintiffs do not ask that colleges be required to pay the cost of attendance, only that universities be given the option to do so with their revenue-producing athletes. They say most programs can easily afford to pay the additional $245,000 a year that would bring the 85 football and 13 men’s basketball players up to the desired level, even if the NCAA does not step up to cover the costs. For schools with a basketball team, but no Division I-A football team, the increase would be $32,500.

I don’t see this lawsuit succeeding with that approach — as much as I may personally agree with it. Every BCS conference school and school that wants to crash the BCS would have to offer the full cost. They’d be at a competitive disadvantage, so the “option” really isn’t unless the school wants to lose a lot of games and not get the talent.

The NCAA will also argue that it can’t just offer the full cost option only to the big-time athletic programs. The NCAA and athletic departments — regardless of the fact that there are usually a completely separate AD staff for the football and the men’s basketball programs at the big schools — are integrated and part of the entire athletic department for a school.

And to a large degree they can make a good case. The 85 scholarships for football aren’t separated from the rest of the total athletic scholarships. That’s why with Title IX, athletic departments have to create enough female sports programs and offer scholarships in the same number to comply with federal law.

Exactly how can a lawsuit prefer the football and men’s basketball programs in terms of financial support only based on the overall money involved in the sport?

I look forward to what Josh Centor at the NCAA blog has to say about this. And, no Josh, I haven’t forgotten about the prep school stuff. I intend to get back to it and your thoughts.