Calling On the VN Legal Community

#51
#51
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Unreasonably and unfairly restricting the market is an antitrust violation.

Is limiting eligibility to a certain number of years a sufficient market restriction to be called an antitrust violation? I believe that's the legal question that will come up.

The NCAA lost the ability to attempt to limit transfers via making someone sit out because it unfairly restricted the market according to the court.

Does counting JUCO years as college years unfairly restrict the market?

Does limiting the total years someone can play at all to 6 or 7 or 8 or 20 unfairly restrict the market?

These are the questions. Restrictions on the market are permitted BUT unreasonable and unfair restrictions aren't. That's why courts sort this stuff out.
Click to expand...
I want to join the Cub Scouts. Who is Joey's lawyer again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1, knox73 and ArdentVol
#52
#52
WaywardVol said:
What law is being violated by having college athletes actually be in college and working toward a degree?
Click to expand...
None, but some adult learners stay in college for ten or more years working on multiple degrees. I did that.

Why should it be different for athletes?
 
#53
#53
Hunerwadel said:
If there is such a thing.

Will someone with legal expertise please thoroughly explain exactly what all is at stake in the Pavia, Aguilar et al lawsuit. I'm sure there is more to it than most of us understand.

It seems to me that if the judge rules in favor to the plaintiffs he is saying private organizations and associations do not have the right to make their own rules or that perhaps some the rules they are making are may not meet constitutional muster.

It also seems to me that if the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs a student in good standing should be allowed to participate in extracurricular activities for as long as he likes and is able.
Click to expand...
First the Pavia piece of this does not exist anymore. The foundation now for JAs case is the eligibility of a 4th year of major college football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam.vol and S.C. OrangeMan
#55
#55
Ask ChatGPT; it will get close enough. I’m not analyzing anything unless I get paid and I get access to the witnesses and evidence. Signed, a lawyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barney
#56
#56
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Unreasonably and unfairly restricting the market is an antitrust violation.

Is limiting eligibility to a certain number of years a sufficient market restriction to be called an antitrust violation? I believe that's the legal question that will come up.

The NCAA lost the ability to attempt to limit transfers via making someone sit out because it unfairly restricted the market according to the court.

Does counting JUCO years as college years unfairly restrict the market?

Does limiting the total years someone can play at all to 6 or 7 or 8 or 20 unfairly restrict the market?

These are the questions. Restrictions on the market are permitted BUT unreasonable and unfair restrictions aren't. That's why courts sort this stuff out.
Click to expand...
not a lawyer but I don't think a cartel (the NCAA) can impose a market restriction because it violates an anti-trust law. But if a market restriction is enforced and agreed to via a CBA, its fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#57
#57
barney said:
not a lawyer but I don't think a cartel (the NCAA) can impose a market restriction because it violates an anti-trust law. But if a market restriction is enforced and agreed to via a CBA, its fine.
Click to expand...
I think you're right but there's no CBA in college football because that implies employee status for the players and the schools will not accept employee status for players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#58
#58
WaywardVol said:
What law is being violated by having college athletes actually be in college and working toward a degree?
Click to expand...
That's a twisted attempt to further an agenda by posing it as a question. It doesn't summarize the issues. I won't play.

The court's doing its job to determine if a law is being violated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#60
#60
WaywardVol said:
Sorry, but that’s not an actual legal argument. The only ruling in favor of eligibility thus far is Pavia, which only stated that JUCO shouldn’t count. Other courts have ruled against players making the same argument, like the baseball player, Osunsa, who was ruled against. It seems arbitrary, which means a higher court will get involved and they aren’t going to abolish eligibility restrictions.
Click to expand...
I am meaning someone will file using anti trust laws . That not letting them continue to play causes them financial harm. And they will probably win. That’s what dabo was talking about when he said 30 yr old playing college football
 
#62
#62
barney said:
The Sherman Anti-trust act. It is an unlawful restriction on trade - namely the athletes ability to profit from their NIL.
Click to expand...
Doubtful, IMO as a non attorney. Even the Supreme Court in the harshness of the Alston opinion did not say the NCAA could place no restrictions on trade or that they could make no rules for the league but that the rules had to be "reasonable."

It's not unreasonable to expect a college league to include college just as it's not unreasonable for a team to include mandatory practices and such.

A player cannot sue to avoid practice on Antitrust grounds, of course, despite being dismissed and losing their NIL if they refuse. That's part of being in the league that's reasonable. So is college attendance in a college league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaywardVol
#64
#64
adam.vol said:
Anti-discrimination laws. They can’t say 4 years for some and not others. The NCAA made the rules and the lawsuit is going to hold them to it.
Click to expand...
Ok, then hold them to working toward a degree. Remember when you had to go to class and actually get so many credit hours. Seriously, you guys act as it’s all arbitrary. It isn’t. Either a higher court is going to act or Congress will.

The solution is to legally seperate the NIL completely from the schools and boosters. If Billy is valuable enough to sign with Nike, then so be it. Good for Billy.
 
#65
#65
tenor.gif
seinfeld-lawyer.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1 and WaywardVol
#66
#66
WaywardVol said:
Ok, then hold them to working toward a degree. Remember when you had to go to class and actually get so many credit hours. Seriously, you guys act as it’s all arbitrary. It isn’t. Either a higher court is going to act or Congress will.

The solution is to legally seperate the NIL completely from the schools and boosters. If Billy is valuable enough to sign with Nike, then so be it. Good for Billy.
Click to expand...
They are required to enroll as full time students to play as college athletes. You can’t force someone from dropping out when they’re done.
 
#71
#71
WaywardVol said:
Ok, then hold them to working toward a degree. Remember when you had to go to class and actually get so many credit hours. Seriously, you guys act as it’s all arbitrary. It isn’t. Either a higher court is going to act or Congress will.

The solution is to legally seperate the NIL completely from the schools and boosters. If Billy is valuable enough to sign with Nike, then so be it. Good for Billy.
Click to expand...
There is no legal way to separate NIL.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top