Confirmation for those who doubted the NCAA's violation of Anti-Trust laws! NEC BID!

As I alluded to (before some...ahem...deflected the scope of the conversation), another court (there have been many), has confirmed the NCAA is subject to the SHERMAN ACT anti-trust provisions.

Getting back to my, and many other's earlier point, if the NEC wanted to sue for an auto-bid, they would have a very strong case. Why? Arguments that the SWAC and IVY league's do not have a bid are moot. They choose not to be part of the equation. If, however, they did want a bid, bet your butts they would some how find two-more auto-bids.

As Ace in the Hole said, get us, in writing, the requirements for auto-bid inclusion. As the requirements stand now, subjectivity is the only factor in deciding the auto-bid; more importantly is that every conference who chooses to participate in the playoffs HAS an auto-bid while the NEC does not.

According to my research, and this latest ruling, the NCAA cannot create a monopoly (which they are by having the ONLY sanctioned IAA playoffs while at the same time not allowing for a mid-major bowl (which they have repeatedly denied the mid-majors upon application). THIS IS ANTI-TRUST AT IT'S FINEST.

All arguments based on subjectivity, which I agree on many of them, including funding, are thrown out with this latest ruling.

Again, I agree with the UD fan who stated no league would sue because there would be some back room implications (e.g. no more autobids or animosity) against a league like the NEC.

That is far from the point; the true point is the legal leg the NEC would have...and it is a sturdy one.

BTW, before anyone says this is limited to scholarship issues, know it is not. This is an OVERALL finding against certain tactics employed by the NCAA.

On a side note, this case, if found in favor of the students, would hurt the talent pool on the IAA level on some plane.

http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/colum...sik/060215.htm

First of all, nothing has been settled yet - this link only refers to requests by the NCAA for summary judgement, which has been denied - the case still needs to be tried and appeals afterward need to be heard.

Second, be careful what you wish for. I'm sure we would all love (*sarcasm here*) the days of the Oklahoma's and Alabama's of the world hoarding 200 scholarship players (or whatever amount they want to pay).

And third, you do realize that NEC are eligible for the playoffs, right? With all these arguments I'm getting the idea you think the NEC is barred from the playoffs. Great West teams are making the playoffs without an autobid - Patriot League teams did so as well before they got an auto-bid. MEAC teams got in before they got an automatic bid. Heck, if Coastal hadn't blown it in the final seconds last year a Big South team would've made the playoffs without an autobid. Why do you think NEC teams (or their fans) are so insistent on the auto-bid rather than earning an at-large bid, which has been available to them for 7 years now?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm really not clear about why this has anything to do with the NEC and the playoffs.

Quote:

---

A group of walk-on football players at NCAA Division I-A schools in the State of Washington have filed suit against the NCAA challenging [limitations on scholarships]... The walk-ons alleged that they would have receive athletic scholarships to their respective institutions were it not for the NCAA’s limitations on such scholarships... In a decision delivered late last year, the court disagreed with the NCAA. It noted that several state and federal courts have held that the NCAA and its member institutions are subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and that the awarding of financial aid to students, regardless of their athletic ability, is subject to the Act.

---

What on earth does this have to do with the NEC and the playoffs? This is a ruling based on scholarships and I-A institutions. I don't even see the chance as using this as a precedent for allowing the NEC to not have access to the playoffs.

So, one court has brought up the Sherman Anti-Trust act (SATA) in regards to walk-ons and I-A scholarship limits. That doesn't mean that they will use this to force the NCAA to give the NEC an autobid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lehigh Football Nation

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm really not clear about why this has anything to do with the NEC and the playoffs.



What on earth does this have to do with the NEC and the playoffs? This is a ruling based on scholarships and I-A institutions. I don't even see the chance as using this as a precedent for allowing the NEC to not have access to the playoffs.

So, one court has brought up the Sherman Anti-Trust act (SATA) in regards to walk-ons and I-A scholarship limits. That doesn't mean that they will use this to force the NCAA to give the NEC an autobid.

---

Agree here.

The fact is the scholarship limitation has probably helped more football players than hurt. When there were no scholarship limitations schools such as Oklahoma would offer scollies to players that they knew could not start at their school just to keep them from going to another school. While the big boys could go back to offering over 100 football scollies other schools would have to rethink their commitment to football and some would probably drop the sport when it becomes obvious they couldn't compete at all with the major BCS powers. Since the advent of the 85 scholarship limit more schools have added football and /or increased their level of commitment.

In my view this is a very short sighted lawsuit.

The argument that a walk-on would have gotten a scholarship is pretty ridiculous anyway. Who is to say that the player would have gotten that slot? The team likely would have recruited someone else.

That was a complete waste of time reading that article. #1, all the court did is turn down the NCAA's motion to dismiss. There are all kinds of roadblocks to that suit, namely Title IX.

If all the thread's purpose is to say you can see the NCAA then point accomplished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GannonFan

First of all, nothing has been settled yet - this link only refers to requests by the NCAA for summary judgement, which has been denied - the case still needs to be tried and appeals afterward need to be heard.

Second, be careful what you wish for. I'm sure we would all love (*sarcasm here*) the days of the Oklahoma's and Alabama's of the world hoarding 200 scholarship players (or whatever amount they want to pay).

And third, you do realize that NEC are eligible for the playoffs, right? With all these arguments I'm getting the idea you think the NEC is barred from the playoffs. Great West teams are making the playoffs without an autobid - Patriot League teams did so as well before they got an auto-bid. MEAC teams got in before they got an automatic bid. Heck, if Coastal hadn't blown it in the final seconds last year a Big South team would've made the playoffs without an autobid. Why do you think NEC teams (or their fans) are so insistent on the auto-bid rather than earning an at-large bid, which has been available to them for 7 years now?

---

Ok, since apparently you are a lawyer today, if that request was denied it means there IS A MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT for the jury to decide. If the case was meritless on the claim, it would have been tossed (as often is with high profile institutions like the NCAA or public school athletic leagues.

All I meant, and maybe I was not clear, is this follows a long line of NCAA anti-trust issues.

Again, it wasnt a complete waste of time if you followed the clear line of reasoning and the HISTORY.

Some of you make me sick because you cant open your eyes at time. I will give free lessons on the anti-trust violation here, in the past with other NCAA related issues, and with future ones on the table, if you would like. THIS APPLIES TO THE NCAA BECAUSE THE COURT SAID...YOU ARE DEFINATELY A GROUP THAT COMES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.

Numerous times here, other said not allowing an autobid to the NEC could not be an antitrust violation because the NCAA is not a monopoly and cant come under the Antitrust laws. Clearly, here the court begged to differ, as did NEARLY EVERY OTHER COURT when the Sherman act is brought up in regards to the NCAA.

JESUS. : flamemad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluehenbillk

That was a complete waste of time reading that article. #1, all the court did is turn down the NCAA's motion to dismiss. There are all kinds of roadblocks to that suit, namely Title IX.

If all the thread's purpose is to say you can see the NCAA then point accomplished.

---

Really Bill? Due explain how TITLE IX has any relevance to this issue. I am waiting with a bemused look. xcoffeex

Oh, I see your point. It's basically this paragraph:

Quote:

---

In a decision delivered late last year, the court disagreed with the NCAA. It noted that several state and federal courts have held that the NCAA and its member institutions are subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and that the awarding of financial aid to students, regardless of their athletic ability, is subject to the Act. The court stated that such activities clearly impact upon “trade or commerce” among the states and, by the NCAA’s own admission, scholarship rules were enacted, at least in part, to reduce the scholarship and recruiting expenses of NCAA-member institutions. The court held that the NCAA was, therefore, subject to suit under

Section 1.

---

That's all fine and dandy.

What I fail to see (I won't speak for others) is how an automatic qualifier impacts trade or commerce. The NEC is not banned from the playoffs. They just don't have a free ticket.

That's my hurdle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dane96

Ok, since apparently you are a lawyer today, if that request was denied it means there IS A MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT for the jury to decide. If the case was meritless on the claim, it would have been tossed (as often is with high profile institutions like the NCAA or public school athletic leagues.

All I meant, and maybe I was not clear, is this follows a long line of NCAA anti-trust issues.

Again, it wasnt a complete waste of time if you followed the clear line of reasoning and the HISTORY.

Some of you make me sick because you cant open your eyes at time. I will give free lessons on the anti-trust violation here, in the past with other NCAA related issues, and with future ones on the table, if you would like. THIS APPLIES TO THE NCAA BECAUSE THE COURT SAID...YOU ARE DEFINATELY A GROUP THAT COMES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.

Numerous times here, other said not allowing an autobid to the NEC could not be an antitrust violation because the NCAA is not a monopoly and cant come under the Antitrust laws. Clearly, here the court begged to differ, as did NEARLY EVERY OTHER COURT when the Sherman act is brought up in regards to the NCAA.

JESUS. : flamemad

---

Hey, smack all you want, I just made the point that the only thing settled in this case was the denial of summary judgement. I never said the NCAA couldn't be considered under the Sherman Antitrust Act so save your diatribe for them.

However, the issue of awarding of scholarships and the issue of who gets an auto-bid are really different things and makes this example, while interesting, a bit irrelevant. No one makes a lot of money, if any, off of the playoffs so what commerce is being affected? Any NEC school is already eligible for the playoffs so who is being denied? I still harken back to my original third point, which you didn't address, that other conferences without auto-bids have and still manage to get into the playoffs, despite your contention that the NCAA effectively blocks non-auto bid league schools. Any attempt by the NEC to sue its way into the playoffs is certainly going to be negatively affected by these realities.