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.