ILNews

Law school dean on NFL Network as legal analyst

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If you watch the NFL Network, you may have recognized a familiar name among the commentators. Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis Dean Gary R. Roberts has been serving as an on-air legal analyst for the network discussing the current labor dispute between NFL owners and players.

So far, he has done a few call-in interviews, including one on March 11 to discuss the labor negotiations. That interview was recorded at the WFYI studio in Indianapolis and is available on the NFL Network’s website. In that interview, he explained the role of lawyers and the possible trajectory of the NFL labor negotiations through the court system.

When he gives his analysis, he said, he doesn’t take sides and only comments on the legal aspects, such as whether one side has a strong or weak legal argument and why.

During the March 11 interview, he told the other commentators, who were in the NFL Network studio in Los Angeles, that he expected both sides to come to an agreement shortly before the 2011 NFL season is scheduled to begin and that he expects there to be a Super Bowl in Indianapolis in 2012.

Roberts said the NFL Network contacted him a few weeks ago, likely based on his past analysis for other media outlets regarding legal issues of various sports.

Roberts is a leading expert on sports law and antitrust law and has testified nine times before Congressional committees. He is a certified commercial and sports arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association and is a founding member and serves on the board of directors of the International Association of Sports Professionals and Executives.

He said the reason he does media interviews with the NFL Network and other TV and radio programs is for the “great visibility not only for me professionally, but for the law school. It brings our institution into the public’s consciousness, where good people are doing interesting things.”

When he began his tenure as dean of the law school in 2007, Roberts hoped to incorporate more sports law courses, but he said finding external funding has been difficult. The school currently offers two sports law courses, one taught by the dean and the other by Scott Bearby, managing director of legal affairs and associate general counsel to the NCAA.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT