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

[Dane96]

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/columns/edmatisik/060215.htm

[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?

[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.


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.

[blukeys]

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.

[rokamortis]

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.

[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.

[Dane96]

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

[Dane96]

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

[colgate13]

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



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.

[GannonFan]

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.

[ButlerGSU]

That's a pretty lame PR move. To sue for an autobid? Seriously, if your team is good enough they will get in. Youngstown State was mad enough to sue in 2005 but they didn't.

[bluehenbillk]

Dane 96 - Title IX has nothing to do with a NEC auto-bid. However, the case that you provided a link to is flawed due to Title IX. Title IX dictates based on a schools percentage of male to female enrollment how many scholarships can be awarded in more of your "traditional Olympic" sports.

Thus, this would dramatically affect or negate the walk-on lawsuit & the precedent you stated.

[Hansel]

Easy answer, dump ALL the autobids :)

[AmsterBison]

Heh, Hansel, I think Nodakers must think alike. As soon as people started saying that NEC teams should make it on their own merits rather than relying on an autobid, I started to wonder why can't SoCon, Big Sky, A10, and Gateway teams couldn't do the same.

[blukeys]

Easy answer, dump ALL the autobids :)


I'm in favor of it provided it ends the debate on the NEC autobid. This is the 3rd time in the last 12 months this issue has been brought to this board. The last time we went through this Colgate 13 and 89 Hen totally demonstrated that no Mid Major team warranted a bid to the tournament. The NEC folks were challenged to produce a team that should have been invited to the playoffs and the silence was deafening. We have yet to hear from any of the NEC posters which Mid Major team warranted getting into the playoffs.

I'm not convinced that goint to 16 at large berths will do it. If we went to 16 at large berths some NEC fan would STILL say that the NEC needs an auto bid!

[AppGuy04]

Heh, Hansel, I think Nodakers must think alike. As soon as people started saying that NEC teams should make it on their own merits rather than relying on an autobid, I started to wonder why can't SoCon, Big Sky, A10, and Gateway teams couldn't do the same.

They could, see the number of teams in the playoffs from those conferences. The small leagues would have the problem, not the "big boys"

[McTailGator]

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?


They can sue thier butts off all they want...

All the NCAA and the playoff I-AA's will do is require playoff participates to be required to maintain a minmum number of scholarships for playoff consideration.

Case closed. NEC once again on the outside looking in.: smash :

[danefan]

Case closed. NEC once again on the outside looking in.: smash :

And so will the Patriot League. And then at least there will be a defined standard for non-auto bid leagues to strive for.

[eaglesrthe1]

I think that the problem is solved. The NEC and the Pionneer have found the sure-fire way to an auto-bid. Sue your way in.

What a joke.

Next year the CUSA and MAC champs will be guaranteed a spot in the BCS.

[Dane96]

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



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.



Here is how you jump that hurdle. In the famous USFL case, the NFL said "hey, there are other TV outlets." The USFL said "yeah, but they suck." All of course should not be in quotes...they are just summations. The argument here is similar. The NCAA says "we arent banning you, just get in as an at-large, other OUTLETS."

Taking that logically, the response of the NEC would be similar to the USFL. "Great, you let us have an opportunity, but it is a veil at best...we want the same standards as everyone else." Right now, as a league that has been put together for x years with 6 teams, the NEC is the only league that doesnt have a bid. So, they are not being held to the same standards as everyone else, just like playing on PBS isnt the same as playing on NBC/ABC.

The courts are pretty consistent on this. The kicker? THE NCAA ON RECORD DENYING THE Mid-MAJORS THERE OWN SANCTIONED PLAYOFF.

Bill, your view of title IX are wrong. Title IX is not strictly a scholarship issue regarding ratios; a school can be compliant without meeting the ration standard. There are about 5 other standards which, if met, put a school in compliance.

Again, to those that mention it, the NEC WONT SUE. That wasnt the point. The point was for those who said they had no case. It is pretty clear they do.

All for naught, either the NEC will get there autobid, or a realignment will occur and new leagues will form (most likely...) in the next two-three years, prompting new bids.

Gannon fan, your third point is answered simply. THERE IS A BIAS and simply put, the law does not allow for it. Every eligible conference receives an auto-bid (sans IVY and SWAC). THE NEC DOES NOT. It matters not that there is another avenue for the NEC to get in (At-Large); the NEC is being treated differently regarding the auto-bid. Furthermore, the facts are clear; to gain an auto-bid from an "outside" league is tougher than an "inside" league. To deny that, is lying to yourself. So, if the NEC cant get the same auto bid shake, and most likely will never get an at-large shake, plus the fact, as others have said, the big boys wont schedule us as often if winning those games will get us in, then effectively, we are being colluded against. Hence, violation of sections I and II of the Sherman Act.

[Dane96]

They could, see the number of teams in the playoffs from those conferences. The small leagues would have the problem, not the "big boys"

And they did...they actually (the WAC) filed suit that ended in the settlement of how the BSC would be re-calculated.

[*****]

... Right now, as a league that has been put together for x years with 6 teams, the NEC is the only league that doesnt have a bid. ... Every eligible conference receives an auto-bid (sans IVY and SWAC). THE NEC DOES NOT...Neither does the PFL. :read:

[GannonFan]

Here is how you jump that hurdle. In the famous USFL case, the NFL said "hey, there are other TV outlets." The USFL said "yeah, but they suck." All of course should not be in quotes...they are just summations. The argument here is similar. The NCAA says "we arent banning you, just get in as an at-large, other OUTLETS."

Taking that logically, the response of the NEC would be similar to the USFL. "Great, you let us have an opportunity, but it is a veil at best...we want the same standards as everyone else." Right now, as a league that has been put together for x years with 6 teams, the NEC is the only league that doesnt have a bid. So, they are not being held to the same standards as everyone else, just like playing on PBS isnt the same as playing on NBC/ABC.

The courts are pretty consistent on this. The kicker? THE NCAA ON RECORD DENYING THE Mid-MAJORS THERE OWN SANCTIONED PLAYOFF.

Bill, your view of title IX are wrong. Title IX is not strictly a scholarship issue regarding ratios; a school can be compliant without meeting the ration standard. There are about 5 other standards which, if met, put a school in compliance.

Again, to those that mention it, the NEC WONT SUE. That wasnt the point. The point was for those who said they had no case. It is pretty clear they do.

All for naught, either the NEC will get there autobid, or a realignment will occur and new leagues will form (most likely...) in the next two-three years, prompting new bids.

Gannon fan, your third point is answered simply. THERE IS A BIAS and simply put, the law does not allow for it. Every eligible conference receives an auto-bid (sans IVY and SWAC). THE NEC DOES NOT. It matters not that there is another avenue for the NEC to get in (At-Large); the NEC is being treated differently regarding the auto-bid. Furthermore, the facts are clear; to gain an auto-bid from an "outside" league is tougher than an "inside" league. To deny that, is lying to yourself. So, if the NEC cant get the same auto bid shake, and most likely will never get an at-large shake, plus the fact, as others have said, the big boys wont schedule us as often if winning those games will get us in, then effectively, we are being colluded against. Hence, violation of sections I and II of the Sherman Act.


I just think you're all over the place here and you hinge a lot on things that are either wrong or clearly skewed in a direction that fits your argument.

First of all, the USFL case isn't terribly relevant as the crux of the matter was the financial capbility of the USFL to survive versus the NFL. The NCAA I-AA playoffs are in no way a means of sustenance for any school that participates in it. To most schools that do participate in it it is a losing proposition in terms of money. The NEC arguing that they are being denied a chance to lose money is not a winning argument.

Second, Title IX certainly has other measures that can be used to demonstrate compliance, but there has been federal policies in the past and certainly the chance for them to be there in the future where schools have been told that the only way to ensure they will be in compliance is by maintaining scholarships in the same ratio as enrollment. If that idea is put out there, as it was in the very recent past, it's still a very real possibility.

And the biggest flaw I see is your last point. Both the NEC and the PFL are leagues that, by your criteria, should have auto-bids by now, so there's at least one more besides the NEC. You can throw out the Ivy, but technically speaking you can't throw out the SWAC. If you're going to be technical, SWAC teams other than Southern and Grambling are eligible for the playoffs. That's 8 teams in a conference so they would meet the criteria as well. So there are more examples even today that show that the NEC is not being singularly discriminated against.

As for at larges being more difficult to get from outside an auto-bid league versus in one, that's just patently false - a good team can get an at-large regardless of where they reside. Heck, you can look at Youngstown St as a textbook example - they actually found it easier to make the playoffs playing as an independent than as a member of the auto-bid Gateway Conference. It is the quality of the team that matters for at large consideration, not where they are from. Beyond Youngstown St, there are examples all throughout the 20-plus year history of IAA football that show good teams outside of autobid conferences making the playoffs - Hofstra in the 90's, Georgia Southern in the 80's, the aforementioned Youngstown St in the 90's, Delaware in the early 80's, the now Patriot League schools before they got an auto bid, MEAC schools before they got an autobid. Like I said before, if Coastal (not from an autobid) wins their last game of the year last year then they were in. The point is, quality gets you in, not where you're from - that's the real fact.

And finally, what collusion? Albany had a schedule last year that if they won enough they would've been in the playoffs - how is Albany being colluded against from a scheduling standpoint. Albany has Delaware on the schedule this year - it seems to me that Albany can get the games they need to make the playoffs irregardless of the auto-bid. To demonstrate collusion, you're going to have to do better than the random viewpoint of an AGS poster.

Obviously the NEC isn't going to sue to get an auto-bid, but I think the reason for that is much different than you think it is - it's a case that would take a great deal of mountain climbing for the NEC to have any shot to win - I'd stick with just trying to win the games on the schedule you have and getting an at-large. Coastal was 6 seconds away from one last year, and IAA history is replete with others overcoming their albatross of no auto-bid - with a little success on the field the NEC can as well.

[Dane96]

Obviously you have your opinion, but it is misguided to say a school doesnt hinge its survival on IAA playoffs. Of course, that is true, however we play IAA football for many reasons, including raising the school's profile. The USFL case, if you have read it and talked to the principle's (which I find myself honored to have done, numerous times) was not strictly about financial viability. The league could have existed without the TV contract, it just wanted more money. If that were the only argument, the USFL WOULD HAVE LOST.

Again, your Title IX points have nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with IAA autobids. I was responding, in kind, to your misguided comments. What, if I might ask, are the federal policies you have mentioned?! News to me and probably news to every Title IX person out there. I see no correlation to this argument, the issue belongs in a whole other thread. For the record, I am anti-Title IX as it currently stands. In fact, I sat in on a congressional hearing regarding amendments on Title IX, recently, to loosen some requirements because the initial goals are outdated. Title IX is a constitutional issue, not a anti-trust issue.

There is no flaw to the PFL and SWAC argument. The PFL and SWAC, while eligible, has never been rejected for an auto-bid. I did not include them for that reason because though (like the IVY League) they do not participate, they have NEVER ASKED FOR A BID. YOU NEED TO ASK AND GET REJECTED IMHO to be considered in this discussion. I fail to see the flaw, as you put it, in my reasoning for excluding a league which, itself, does not want inclusion (at least by the actions, or lack thereof, of the AD's.)

I see great strength in your at-large bid reasoning. I think it has been established that Albany gets in if they go 10-1 or 9-2 in any year they have the killer OOC sched. What you need to admit, however, is that is more of an exception, rather than the rule. I think you are correct in a sense, however the whole discussion, for the last two weeks, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AN AT-LARGE BID. Furthermore, I was not discussion UA in particular. UA is not really part of the equation. I think it is safe to say that: A) UA GETS A BID IF THEY WIN and B) UA will either be fighting for an auto-bid if the NEC gets one or they will, more likely, be moving on to another conference. I know there are talks already in the works, and this is not a America East thing...it is a bit bigger. My point is the NEC on whole...not one university in particular.

As for the NEC's reasons for suing or not suing, let's just say I have a bit more information on the reasons for not doing so then you do...and leave it at that. Yes, I am playing that card because I have it. Do you actually think I would come on here (since I have been a pretty good poster in the past) spewing and spinning if I didnt have some vested interest other than as a fan?!

Hopefully we can meet up at the Tub and discuss this during the UD-UA game.