Opinion ID: 1826657
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The prominence of the plaintiff in the public controversy.

Text: This inquiry involves evaluating whether the plaintiffs actions have resulted in his being embroiled in the public controversy. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. 2997 (holding that the limited-purpose public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies). Perhaps the main question presented is would a reasonable person have expected Cottrell and Williams to play a significant role in determining the outcome of the controversy. In this case, the outcome of the controversy relates to whether the NCAA would find that The University and its football program fully cooperated with the NCAA's investigation into the alleged rule violations and engaged in adequate self-policing and self-enforcement so as to avoid the death penalty. Cottrell and Williams argue that they did not play a prominent role in the controversy because, they say, the major focus of the investigation involved Young and his improper conduct in recruiting Means and did not focus on their alleged violations of NCAA rules. They assert that because they were minor participants in the investigation, they should not be considered as having any influence on the outcome of the controversy. The evidence, however, established that Cottrell and Williams did play a prominent role in the public controversy. Newspaper articles focused on their conduct, their interviews with Johanningmeier, the violations alleged against them, and how their conduct would impact the COI's view of The University. Both Cottrell and Williams were charged with not providing full disclosure of information during an interview. Although the enforcement staff dropped the charge against Williams, it pursued the charge against Cottrell. The COI found that Cottrell had not complied with the rules in this regard. Therefore, the conduct of Cottrell and Williams did influence the way the NCAA viewed The University's compliance with the rules. Additionally, the record established that Cottrell and Williams both associated with Young, who was the major focus of the NCAA investigation and the main reason for the severity of the penalties imposed. Both Cottrell and Williams admitted violating certain NCAA rules, and, although no penalty was imposed against either Cottrell or Williams, The University was penalized for Cottrell's and Williams's violations of various NCAA rules. Although the evidence indicated that Cottrell and Williams were caught up in the controversy against [their] will, the evidence adequately established that they had assumed by their actions and their association with Young a prominent position in its outcome. Breland, 93 F.3d at 758.