TRO Denied

#4
#4
K87vol said:
www.on3.com

Court rules on TRO in Tennessee, Virginia NIL lawsuit versus NCAA

A federal judge has ruled on a TRO that would allow athletes in two states to communicate with NIL collectives during their recruitment.
www.on3.com www.on3.com

I was under the impression it was unlikely, but would like to have seen it granted.
Click to expand...
Yep, getting the TRO without a formal charge from the NCAA was going to be tough. But the real deal is the injunction on the 13th. I would be shocked if we lose that. It was 50-50 at best of getting the TRO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pimo1, barrylee, Big Orange#1 and 8 others
#5
#5
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#6
#6
JacketVol said:
Not good.
Click to expand...
Did you ever see the old movie "War Games"? Eventually the computer decides the only winning move is not to play. That is the position of the NCAA if UT is willing to go "nuclear". Regardless of what any judge does, other big programs are watching to see how far the NCAA is willing to push this. If they will try to bully UT... they'll domineer everyone else too.

The NCAA has long been arbitrary in the application, interpretation, and enforcement of the rules. They could have changed. They could have adapted. They didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoVols64, MillerTime80, savannahfan and 19 others
#9
#9
JacketVol said:
Not good.
Click to expand...
The justification for the denial is good for Tennessee. The judge said that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstate that failure to grant the TRO would result in irreparable harm. In other words, the meantime between now and the 2/13 hearing wouldn't result in harm that couldn't be remedied by the final ruling.

He COULD have ruled that the TRO was denied because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits (another of the 4 requirements that must be met in order to grant a TRO). He did not do so. That tells me that the judge sees the Plaintiffs' likelihood of prevailing as being reasonably high and that a final ruling in the Plaintiffs' favor would provide them the necessary relief they seek.

Doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion by any stretch, but it's a good sign.

Edit: I now see that the Judge wrote, “Considering the evidence currently before the Court, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act." Exactly what I was getting at. This is good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CedarHillVol, LakeMaryFLVol, OneVolNation and 42 others
#12
#12
After reviewing the order, this denial was definitely a win for us, because as stated above, Judge Corker found that based on the evidence before him now we are likely to prevail on the merits.
So between now, and the 13th our side needs to focus on producing evidence to show irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, pending final adjudication of the case.
One strategy would be to push for a sooner rather than later trial date in lieu of an injunction, and put the NCAA in a box. Given today’s development, it would not surprise me if the NCAA does not agree to some sort of injunctive relief to buy some time to try to resolve this on a national level with some rules that makes sense.
Clear signal today from Greenville Tennessee that will reach all the way to the Supreme Court to the NCAA that is…:;try this case and you’re gonna lose right up the line.

PS. I told you we had a well educated levelheaded, fair, non-activist judge on this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snappervol, DrTNT, JacketVol and 15 others
#13
#13
If we don't get the injunction, which is less likely since he didn't go with the TRO, the NCAA can charge us with the full barrage of weapons. The time to get into a full blown litigation on the Sherman Act would go way beyond 2024 to get completed. In the interim, without the injunction, the NCAA can essentially blow up our season. To say catastrophic is an understatement
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjbongoinstructor, Exiled and JacketVol
#16
#16
brainvol said:
If we don't get the injunction, which is less likely since he didn't go with the TRO, the NCAA can charge us with the full barrage of weapons. The time to get into a full blown litigation on the Sherman Act would go way beyond 2024 to get completed. In the interim, without the injunction, the NCAA can essentially blow up our season. To say catastrophic is an understatement
Click to expand...
You need to read all the Judges comments. GBO
 
  • Like
Reactions: CornDontGrow, Native Orange, Samthebam and 3 others
#17
#17
brainvol said:
If we don't get the injunction, which is less likely since he didn't go with the TRO, the NCAA can charge us with the full barrage of weapons. The time to get into a full blown litigation on the Sherman Act would go way beyond 2024 to get completed. In the interim, without the injunction, the NCAA can essentially blow up our season. To say catastrophic is an understatement
Click to expand...

No worries. It takes the NCAA years to do anything and they aren't going to issue any penalties while this thing is in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReelfootVol, Native Orange and VAVol85
#18
#18
Another interesting note from the Judge: "There is sufficient evidence that the NCAA's NIL-recruiting ban likely harms competition."

Also
The court found the states have a likelihood of success on the merits of the antitrust claim (meaning the NCAA #NIL rules likely violate antitrust law), but found there is no irreparable harm. Which is why the TRO was not issued. The TRO not being issued isn’t damaging to the merits of the rest of the case based on what I’ve seen.

Just means damages/ harm players may incur from now to the 13th isn’t of such a special and irreparable nature to issue a TRO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, Woodlawn VOL, NighthawkVol and 2 others
#19
#19
NighthawkVol said:
The justification for the denial is good for Tennessee. The judge said that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstate that failure to grant the TRO would result in irreparable harm. In other words, the meantime between now and the final adjudication wouldn't result in harm that couldn't be remedied by the final ruling.

He COULD have ruled that the TRO was denied because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits (another of the 4 requirements that must be met in order to grant a TRO). He did not do so. That tells me that the judge sees the Plaintiffs' likelihood of prevailing as being reasonably high and that a final ruling in the Plaintiffs' favor would provide them the necessary relief they seek.

Doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion by any stretch, but it's a good sign.

Edit: I now see that the Judge wrote, “Considering the evidence currently before the Court, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act." Exactly what I was getting at. This is good.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that explanation. I was about to have a panic attack. This makes me feel much better!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBtime and NighthawkVol
#20
#20
hog88 said:
No worries. It takes the NCAA years to do anything and they aren't going to issue any penalties while this thing is in court.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the TRO and/or injunction was to suspend any allegations and punishment by NCAA while the big litigation played out. Without our either, the NCAA can proceed business as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjbongoinstructor and Exiled
#21
#21
hog88 said:
No worries. It takes the NCAA years to do anything and they aren't going to issue any penalties while this thing is in court.
Click to expand...
Looks like judge was trying to say while the NCAA won today that they didn’t look too good in their overall position. Overall while not winning the TRO you couldn’t have liked what the judge said about the next round if your the NCAA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanglemangle
#23
#23
Woodlawn VOL said:
Looks like judge was trying to say while the NCAA won today that they didn’t look too good in their overall position. Overall while not winning the TRO you couldn’t have liked what the judge said about the next round if your the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he basically gave the NCAA a shot across the bow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, Native Orange, HeadVol77 and 4 others
#25
#25
volstudent26 said:
Another interesting note from the Judge: "There is sufficient evidence that the NCAA's NIL-recruiting ban likely harms competition."

Also
The court found the states have a likelihood of success on the merits of the antitrust claim (meaning the NCAA #NIL rules likely violate antitrust law), but found there is no irreparable harm. Which is why the TRO was not issued. The TRO not being issued isn’t damaging to the merits of the rest of the case based on what I’ve seen.

Just means damages/ harm players may incur from now to the 13th isn’t of such a special and irreparable nature to issue a TRO.
Click to expand...
I think it's significant that the denial is because the harm is "monetary, but not irreparable"which seems to say if TN and VA win, the players harmed financially can sue the NCAA for the damage.

I recall someone saying Antitrust damages are triple the harm. I might have that wrong but I think I recall reading that. The NCAA may be setting itself up to lose a lot of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolDave53, S.C. OrangeMan, MemphisVol77 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top