Read this counselor.
Loading…
www.courthousenews.com
I would have thought the reason for filing the way they did would be obvious to you.
Tennessee sues NCAA
- Thread starter TNCatfanforever
- Start date
I would have thought the reason for filing the way they did would be obvious to you.
I’m not arguing what will be found legal or not. I’m saying every league needs eligibility rules and rules that govern how a team builds its roster. If we lose that who will give a rats ass about college sports.
I responded to his post where he said we don’t need the NCAA establishing and enforcing eligibility rules. I am saying we absolutely need that.
Sort of but ok. Since there is no CBA in the NCAA, there are myriad laws the NCAA must follow to protect the interest of the players. Worse yet, most D1 schools are state actors which guarantees players certain protections.
What was your point again?
We do but the players have many rights that the NCAA doesn't have to agree with. Treating athletes differently than other students, and worse yet, treating revenue sports players differently than non-revenue sports players will not stand judicial review.
My point has nothing to do with legality. It’s a point of fan interest and league management. A league where there are no governing rules that restrict how each team builds a roster and who is eligible to participate is a league no one will be interested in. What is legal or not has little to do with that. I appreciate the legal analysis but it has nothing to do with my point.
How is restricting a school from using NiL contracts as an inducement to come to a specific school treating them differently?
That article simply states that they filed an antitrust suit, as I mentioned in my post.
It says nothing with respect to my point about them choosing not to challenge this in state court based on Tennessee state law. So that article doesn’t really address my post at all.
If the state law provides them cover, then why file an antitrust suit instead? Especially when you consider what the courts said about the ability of the NCAA to limit NIL in the O’Bannon case.
I know very well that you can add 2+2. Sometimes I think you just have to be right. I do not and will not agree with you this time. What Tennessee is doing is obvious.
Then you’ll have to explain it to me. If you have a state law supposedly on your side, why challenge something under a federal law that may not be?
The O’Bannon ruling was pretty clear, was it not? The NCAA was permitted to limit NIL provided that they allowed scholarships that covered the full cost of attendance. That is established case law. You also have the issue that you can successfully argue that these are not bona fide NIL deals. They are inducements. The antitrust route on this issue is not a slam dunk.
So my point about the strength of Tennessee’s NIL law would seem to stand here. It seems clear here that Tennessee knows they’re violating rules and has doubts about the ability of their state law to shield them, so they’ve gone directly to the Hail Mary route.
The History Behind the Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes
As a companion piece to the event "Future of College Sports: Reimagining Athlete Pay," editorial director Jon Solomon reviews the history of the college amateurism debate.
Getting tired. I hate the excuse but since I got sick I dont have the same energy for this. I'll respond tomorrow.
Already lost it. Any rule or law that tries to limit earnings will be struck down. The NCAA lost this argument and itself by ignoring it. College athletics is done as we know it. Every single university is using this as an inducement and that’s why they will get this injunction. You can’t write rules on the fly, keep changing them and then cry foul 3 years after the fact. The ncaa lost before they got started.
I was in Nashville Tuesday, and the sports talk shows were going crazy over this. Basically saying the NCAA was coming after UT & FSU for violating NIL before they were even created. Now that they're on the books, the NCAA wants to go back and hold UT to a standard that didn't exist at the time that kid signed. UT's Chancellor even sent a scathing letter to the new NCAA President.
Here is where it gets better. In the early days before the NCAA passed any rules, they issued one clear guidance; schools are not to be directly involved in paying or brokering NIL Deals. Eventually the "Collectives" were formed to bypass this.
The marketing company that signed the QB to the NIL was on the radio before the kid signed bragging about having XX Million (i want to say $12m) set aside to recruit a QB and then named a couple other positions they were targeting (i.e. obviously plugged into teams needs).
A copy of the contract says its a marketing agreement for him, and he is not obligated to sign with or play for any specific team. The contract automatically terminates when he turns pro.
So did Tenn break a rule? They don't think so, the apparently NCAA does. Although no COI has been sent.
Anybody remember Cal saying Kentucky wasn't going to do guaranteed NIL? Sign and the deals will come. This was why. The NCAA was too vague. You know we would have been a target if we jumped the gun.
Here is where it gets better. In the early days before the NCAA passed any rules, they issued one clear guidance; schools are not to be directly involved in paying or brokering NIL Deals. Eventually the "Collectives" were formed to bypass this.
The marketing company that signed the QB to the NIL was on the radio before the kid signed bragging about having XX Million (i want to say $12m) set aside to recruit a QB and then named a couple other positions they were targeting (i.e. obviously plugged into teams needs).
A copy of the contract says its a marketing agreement for him, and he is not obligated to sign with or play for any specific team. The contract automatically terminates when he turns pro.
So did Tenn break a rule? They don't think so, the apparently NCAA does. Although no COI has been sent.
Anybody remember Cal saying Kentucky wasn't going to do guaranteed NIL? Sign and the deals will come. This was why. The NCAA was too vague. You know we would have been a target if we jumped the gun.
A rule that prohibits schools from using NIL as an inducement to attend that school in no way limits earnings. It's not a restriction on the athlete. It's a restriction on the school. The athlete can earn as much as he or she can earn. That being said, I don't have faith in the NCAA being competent enough to manage the situation.
That's a good article. Chief Justice White made the same case I am making. Sports leagues cannot be operated as free market entities. By definition they are collectives. They collude and cooperate with each other. They are not competing against each other in an economic sense. They compete only in athletics. They are not trying to put each other out of business. To the contrary, they need the other teams to succeed in an economic sense because an individual team has no economic value outside of the league. If the league fails, the team fails. The league has to have the latitude to create rules that are in it's best interest to keep fan interest and maintain a quality product. Trying to regulate sports leagues through the lens of anti-trust law and restraint of trade is foolish. It's akin to trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. I hate involving government in most anything because generally government regulation creates more problems than it cures, but in this case, I think they need to act to exempt sports leagues from certain aspects of anti-trust law.The History Behind the Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes
As a companion piece to the event "Future of College Sports: Reimagining Athlete Pay," editorial director Jon Solomon reviews the history of the college amateurism debate.www.aspeninstitute.org
The problem is they are going after Tennessee for what the “collective” did. I mean sure it’s a wink but the NCAA is saying that inducement is illegal. Well that means it’s limiting what that player makes. This has and will be covered by every lawyer worth his salt. The NCAA lost before it began. Look at the definition of inducement. For instance…a scholarship is an inducement. This isn’t my opinion either.
They may lose, I don't know. I'm not qualified to make a legal judgement. But saying the collective can't offer a kid money to play at a specific school in no way limits the players ability to make money. The collective can still pay a player whatever it wants.
The kids contract had language specifically in it that stats it in no way was contingent on him going to a specific school. Tennessee adopted NIL for high school. So the ncaa literally has lost. Look for an injunction soon.
Okay. Do we know for sure that's what the NCAA is investigating? From your description it sounds like that would be within the rules. Also, the NCAA is investigating. They haven't issued anything or handed down any penalties. What would be the purpose of the injunction?
Last edited:
Yes. They are grasping. The purpose would be because they can. They won’t fold like FSU. FSU doesn’t have the money or backing to fight like Tennessee does(rumor, speculation)
I could be wrong, but I don't think the court would issue an injunction to stop the NCAA from investigating. If the NCAA had penalized UT, they might issue an injunction so the NCAA can't enforce the penalty until the court rules on the issue. I can't imagine they would prevent the NCAA from fact finding.
Actually, he says just the opposite. He says one of the weaknesses in their case is there is no immediate damage to UT. They haven't issued any penalties. There is no timetable for anything to happen. He said generally injunctions are to stop immediate harm, and in this case there is no immediate harm. I don't know if the guy knows what he is talking about or not, but he did not say it was a slam dunk they would issue an injunction.
It isn't over yet but this makes much of my point.
Federal judge’s NIL ruling throws NCAA into chaos: ‘Turning upside down’
A preliminary injunction could be a boon for college athletes.
nypost.com
While UT was under investigation the QB in question was flown to Knoxville while a High School Jr in a booster’s jet. A level one violation. Then UT officially offered him a 9 million dollar deal. There is more here than an NIL situation
It doesn’t make the point that I was responding to. Your initial assertion to which I responded was that Tennessee’s state NIL law prevented the NCAA from enforcing their NIL rule.It isn't over yet but this makes much of my point.
Federal judge’s NIL ruling throws NCAA into chaos: ‘Turning upside down’
A preliminary injunction could be a boon for college athletes.
To which I responded, if your assertion were true, why are they going the antitrust route? The reason is because it’s likely Tennessee recognized their state law was not as helpful and they needed to go the antitrust route to try and invalidate the NIL rule wholesale across the nation.
Now whether this works out for Tennessee remains to be seen. It’s by no means surprising that a judge would view the NIL rules as problematic based on preliminary data. The O’Bannon case also held that the NCAA’s NIL rules violated antitrust law, so that’s been established for years.
The question on whether the NCAA’s rules can stand despite apparently violating antitrust law will hinge on things like:
- Does the elimination of NCAA rules on things like COA limits give the NCAA leeway to maintain this NIL? That type of analysis is effectively how courts decided to allow NIL restrictions to persist post-O’Bannon.
- Does the court make a distinction between bona fide NIL and inducements masquerading as NIL, and if so, does the court view inducements as an area that’s acceptable for the NCAA to limit?
- Does the fact that Tennessee’s original law prohibited the behavior Tennessee’s accused of matter in how this should be viewed? Tennessee’s collective executed one of these agreements in California, which could be viewed as the collective trying to circumvent Tennessee’s state law as it was written at that time.
Similar threads
