Former assistant men's basketball coach Pete Gaudet helped start the fight against the NCAA and its restricted-earnings coaching position three years ago.
But after announcing his resignation from coaching last week, Gaudet removed himself from the fray and from witnessing the dramatic conclusion to the issue, just days after his decision to resign.
The NCAA announced last Thursday that it will eliminate the restricted-earnings position entirely after a federal judge in Kansas City ruled in favor of five coaches protesting the restriction.
That decision opened the door for Gaudet to reclaim his former position--a job he left because of the financial restrictions explicit in the restricted-earnings label. Gaudet announced last Friday, however, that he would not resume his coaching duties.
"I am in a stable job situation and comfortable with my decision to pursue interests outside of coaching at Duke," Gaudet said in a press release. "I'm not looking back."
Gaudet's decision not to return came after a week of speculation concerning the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District court in Kansas City, Kan. Judge Kathryn Vratil decided that the NCAA's restrictions on earnings violated Federal antitrust laws, ending a fight waged unsuccessfully by Gaudet in a North Carolina suit last year.
"I think everybody in this profession and a heck of a lot of people out of the profession thought all along that to put restricted on someone's name is wrong," Gaudet said. "It's great that somebody in authority--who has studied it--has seen that."
The federal suit--in which Gaudet is not personally involved--is a class-action suit, which means that the decision affects all restricted-earnings coaches, not just the five named in the suit.
"Coach Gaudet has been very much in the forefront, in regards to the position and the legal fight over the position," Virginia assistant coach Pete Herrmann said. "He actually was one of the coaches who talked to me about getting involved, and I did."
Herrmann, one of the five plaintiffs in the suit against the NCAA, said that the decision should have serious ramifications about the nature of the third assistant-coaching position.
"We feel it's a definite victory for the coaches," Herrmann said. "But we don't know what it means in terms of each individual coach and in regards to the position of assistant coach."
One result of the new decision will be that the restricted-earnings coaches will now be able to arrange new salary agreements.
"I told my clients they should go out and negotiate their deals what they feel the market demands," said Gerald Roth, one of the attorneys representing the five coaches in the federal case. "The effect of this decision is that a person can go out in the open market and negotiate what he's worth."
But questions still remain for the former restricted-earnings coaches.
"What does that mean in regards to financial stability to someone like myself who has been a head coach?" asked Herrmann. "What does that mean in regards to the position I have here?"
Herrmann, a former head coach at Navy, is in a similar position to Gaudet. Neither fit the role the NCAA expected the restricted-earnings position to play. The position, established in 1992 in an effort to contain collegiate athletic costs, was intended to encompass either a part-time or graduate-student assistant.
"It's uncharted water," Herrmann said. "It's either been a part-time position, a grad-assistant position or a restricted-earnings position. And now, as far as we can tell, it's none of the above."
But for schools with big-time athletic programs like Duke, the restricted-earnings position constrained the third full-time assistant coach.
With the removal of the income restriction, schools that desire a third assistant coach will be able to retain that position.
"The restricted-earnings position has always been a full-time job," Herrmann said. "Now we can talk about receiving financial compensation for a full-time position in the basketball office."
Under the new ruling, the compensation decisions would be made on a university-by-university level. Decisions about removing the coaching position would also be made on an individual basis. And Roth believes that it is unlikely the NCAA will decide to eliminate the third assistant coaching position altogether.
"[The assistant coaches] put in a minimum of 60 hours a week all year long," Roth said. "I can't see them doing away with that position completely."
The possibility does remain that the federal decision could be appealed by the NCAA and ultimately overturned. In that event, the restricted-earnings position could be reinstituted. But that all depends if the NCAA decides to appeal.
"The time of the appeal--the ticking of the time--won't occur until the judge files a written opinion recording her decision," Roth said. "When that will be forthcoming, I don't know. As of yet, the time is not ticking."
Barring a successful appeal, the next step for the plaintiffs is to seek damages for lost compensation over the past three years. A new trial will have to be heard to determine the level of any damages.
"The whole class [of restricted earnings coaches] could earn damages that could be several million dollars," Roth said. "Coach Gaudet could get compensation for the period of time that he was restricted."
Roth, one of four attorneys on record in the case, hopes for a speedy end to the process. But the case could drag on for several more years.
"I would hope this all would take place in a year if there is no appeal," Roth said. "If there is an appeal that would slow matters down. But that is in the hands of the NCAA."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.