Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    8,442
    Contribute to D2
    Rep Power
    669450

  2. #2

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    Why let the college control this at all?
    Just let athletes profit off their likeness by giving them a cut of jerseys, or letting them sell autographs, pictures, video games, interviews....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    8,442
    Rep Power
    669450

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    It will be interesting to see what program's like Alabama and others that actually have profitable programs do with this:

    Pursuant to Judge Wilken’s order, recruits will soon be able to receive athletic scholarship offers that exceed a “full ride” to college. To the extent schools elect to offer more than a full ride, the excess amount can reflect additional compensation for “non-cash education-related benefits and academic awards.”

  4. #4

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    This isn't going anywhere real fast. Key paragraph in the ESPN article states: "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already said it expects to take the case. It is possible the injunction will be stayed until the 9th Circuit rules." In other words, one District Judge in Californication ain't gong to undo what others have attempted to do in the past, and the ruling will be stopped from taking effect immediately. The NCAA will appeal the lower court's decision to a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, and even if the NCAA loses there, it can request an en banc hearing before the entire 9th Circuit Court bench. But even if the the NCAA loses in the 9th Circuit, it can appeal to the Supremes. The 9th Circuit, or "9th Circus" as some call it, is the most overturned appeals court in the country. Remember the Hawaii District Court Judge who tried to stop Trump from imposing the travel ban? He was backed by the 9th Circuit, but according to the Supremes, the 9th Circuit was wrong and Hawaiian judge's decision was overturned. A lot of wacky things come out of the 9th Circuit, many of them die a slow painful, pitiful death. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were the players because the NCAA is not a government entity. It's a private association that no college has to be a part of and that, within reason, can impose just about whatever rules member institutions collectively want. Compensating student athletes like NFL players ain't one of the things the NCAA and member institutions want to do.
    Last edited by Lobo; 03-10-2019 at 12:57 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    12,942
    Rep Power
    228881

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    All true about the "9th Circus."

    So heres a question. There is a limited pool of numbers and college teams assign them over and over again. Absent a players name on the back, how do you know which "#44" a person is buying (and would get the royalties)? Is it the All American from two years ago or is it because my son is a walk on freshman this year and thats the # the team assigned him? What about players that change their number? Would they get two bites it the jersey royalty apple?

  6. #6

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by boatcapt View Post
    All true about the "9th Circus."

    So heres a question. There is a limited pool of numbers and college teams assign them over and over again. Absent a players name on the back, how do you know which "#44" a person is buying (and would get the royalties)? Is it the All American from two years ago or is it because my son is a walk on freshman this year and thats the # the team assigned him? What about players that change their number? Would they get two bites it the jersey royalty apple?
    The easy bet would be that their name must be on the back of the jersey. That way you know why they are buying because if it is a legacy number where several All-Americans have had the number the only way to properly give royalties would be based on when their name is on the jersey. If it is a 44 without a name then nobody should get royalties. They will need to put names on jerseys and merchandise sold or else it is impossible to know for sure.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    12,942
    Rep Power
    228881

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Josh Buchanan View Post
    The easy bet would be that their name must be on the back of the jersey. That way you know why they are buying because if it is a legacy number where several All-Americans have had the number the only way to properly give royalties would be based on when their name is on the jersey. If it is a 44 without a name then nobody should get royalties. They will need to put names on jerseys and merchandise sold or else it is impossible to know for sure.
    I agree...If the name is on it its clear why the person bought it and that player should get royalties.

    But what do you do in a case like Penn State? Since they dont put names on their jerseys, are those players SOL?? Talk about a negative recruiting incentive!! Also what would prevent the school from selling ONLY jerseys without names and pocketing all the $?? And what would prevent an agent looking to curry favor with a potential top draft choice from snatching up $100,000 in top tier JR jerseys knowing that that player would pocket a portion of the money? Heck, what would prevent a rich booster from approaching a potential recruit and telling him he could "guarantee" he'd purchase 300 jerseys with the players name the day he signed his LOI??
    Last edited by boatcapt; 03-10-2019 at 02:31 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    8,442
    Rep Power
    669450

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    I love the 9th Circuit Circus and the SCOTUS only takes 10% of the cases referred to them. We shall see.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    The 9th circuit has a lower overturn rate than the 6th (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) and the 11th (Florida, Alabama, Georgia) just in case anyone was curious. The ninth circuit is 3rd in reversal but still has a better chance of being upheld than a ruling from the southeast historically speaking.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by twolfbenchwarmer View Post
    The 9th circuit has a lower overturn rate than the 6th (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) and the 11th (Florida, Alabama, Georgia) just in case anyone was curious. The ninth circuit is 3rd in reversal but still has a better chance of being upheld than a ruling from the southeast historically speaking.
    Your source of information is probably Politifact, an apologist for the 9th Circuit. Here's how Poliifact does its fuzzy math. If 2 cases from Colorado reached the Supremes, and both got reversed, and no other cases from the 10th Circuit were reviewed, that would mean that 100% of the cases out of the 10th Circuit got overturned. And if 10 cases from Californication went up, and 8 of them got reversed, and no cases from other states in the 9th circuit went up, that would look like only 80% of the cases got reversed. So according to Politifact, the 10th Circuit has a higher reversal rate than the 9th Circuit. Wrong! Bottom line. The Supremes take more cases on appeal from the 9th Circuit than any other circuit, and more cases from that 9th circuit get reversed than any other circuit in the country.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    Your source of information is probably Politifact, an apologist for the 9th Circuit. Here's how Poliifact does its fuzzy math. If 2 cases from Colorado reached the Supremes, and both got reversed, and no other cases from the 10th Circuit were reviewed, that would mean that 100% of the cases out of the 10th Circuit got overturned. And if 10 cases from Californication went up, and 8 of them got reversed, and no cases from other states in the 9th circuit went up, that would look like only 80% of the cases got reversed. So according to Politifact, the 10th Circuit has a higher reversal rate than the 9th Circuit. Wrong! Bottom line. The Supremes take more cases on appeal from the 9th Circuit than any other circuit, and more cases from that 9th circuit get reversed than any other circuit in the country.
    The politifact article looked at rates since 2004 and the 9th circuit never had the highest rate of overturns.
    The ninth circuit has the largest jurisdiction, and sees more cases overall (“4,000+ more than the next highest”), causing more of their cases seen before the Supreme Court, and therefore the most total overturned decisions. Rate was the keyword in my post, there’s more total murders in New York State but you’re still five times more likely to get killed in Louisiana.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    12,942
    Rep Power
    228881

    Default Re: Judge rules against NCAA in antitrust lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by twolfbenchwarmer View Post
    The politifact article looked at rates since 2004 and the 9th circuit never had the highest rate of overturns.
    The ninth circuit has the largest jurisdiction, and sees more cases overall (“4,000+ more than the next highest”), causing more of their cases seen before the Supreme Court, and therefore the most total overturned decisions. Rate was the keyword in my post, there’s more total murders in New York State but you’re still five times more likely to get killed in Louisiana.
    Supreme Court only review cases that it deems worthy of review. US Court of Appeals (also called Circuit Courts) only review cases were there has been an a potential error in a judicial process at the US district court level. US District Courts (just below US Court of Appeals) are actual trial courts of the US government. As the trial court, they hear presentations of facts and rule on guilt or innocence in criminal matters, and make judgments in civil trials. The authority of each District Court is supposed to be limited to the geographic areas they service. District Courts have "discovered" a way to issue injunctions that have Nationwide scope which means that a District Court in say Northern NY could issue an injunction against the US Government installing new fencing around Fort Leavenworth in Kansas and could extend that injunction to cover all fencing being installed at any military installation in the US.

    There is a reason why the District Courts in the 9th Circuit are the venue that groups most often go to when they want to stop the federal government from doing something anywhere else in the country. That is because the 9th is the most liberal and most likely to issue nationwide injunctions stopping the US Government from doing something.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •