Jim Delany: Rose Bowl might not exist if players are paid

[Deleted_User]

Dpod and I disagree most of the time, but I think he's right on this one. I looked at NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (which I assume is what you are referencing when you say Oklahoma St. v. NCAA, though correct me if I'm wrong, I certainly don't mean to put words in your mouth). In that decision, by my count (and by "my count", I mean I pasted the text from the decision into Word and used the "find" feature), the word "cartel" appears 5 times. All 5 of those are in the same paragraph, and all 5 of those are contained within direct quotations from the District Court. I could not find any instance of the U.S. Supreme Court using the word "cartel" on its own and outside of a direct quote of a lower court.

Let me quote the final paragraph of the judgment just before the word 'Affirmed'.

Today we hold only that the record supports the District Court's conclusion ...

Of which, the court quoted the judgment of the district court as follow:

The District Court then concluded that the NCAA 96*96 controls over college football are those of a "classic cartel" with an "almost absolute control over the supply of college football

Therefore, the SCOTUS agreed that the NCAA is a cartel.

The words SCOTUS used were:

...that by curtailing output and blunting the ability of member institutions to respond to consumer preference, the NCAA has restricted rather than enhanced the place of intercollegiate athletics in the Nation's life. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.”

The key words are "curtailing" and "blunting" which are magic words in the definition of cartel as defined by case law time and again.

Dpo will try to wordsmith his way around this. I wish him luck.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Let me quote the final paragraph of the judgment just before the word 'Affirmed'.


Of which, the court quoted the judgment of the district court as follow:



Therefore, the SCOTUS agreed that the NCAA is a cartel.

The words SCOTUS used were:



The key words are "curtailing" and "blunting" which are magic words in the definition of cartel as defined by case law time and again.

Dpo will try to wordsmith his way around this. I wish him luck.

You went over people's heads by using "affirmed" in a sentence and logical conclusions about affirming a lower court's findings to point out that the NCAA is a cartel in the eyes of the law. Don't even bother trying to explain how a cartel monoplizes a market; thus the shorthand "monopoly" is used. Cartels are actually oligopolies. Anyway, the responses will make your head hurt.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

They are conflating the issues. The court ruled on a specific antitrust issue that had nothing to do with the O'Kessler lawsuits

From the ruling:

The NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports. There can be no question but that it needs ample latitude to play that role, or that the preservation of the student-athlete in higher education adds richness and diversity to intercollegiate athletics and is entirely consistent with the goals of the Sherman Act. But consistent with the Sherman Act, the role of the NCAA must be to preserve a tradition that might otherwise die; rules that restrict output are hardly consistent with this role. Today we hold only that the record supports the District Court's conclusion that by curtailing output and blunting the ability of member institutions to respond to consumer preference, the NCAA has restricted rather than enhanced the place of intercollegiate athletics in the Nation's life. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=468&invol=85

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Did that make your head hurt?

 

[Gopher Placenta]

Oklahoma State v NCAA dummy! That is the first time the NCAA was ruled as an illegal cartel by the Supreme Court.

So the highest court in the land has already ruled the NCAA illegal on grounds of being a cartel yet the NCAA continues to exist . . . how? Andrew Jackson is still president?

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

They are conflating the issues. The court ruled on a specific antitrust issue that had nothing to do with the O'Kessler lawsuits

From the ruling:

The NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports. There can be no question but that it needs ample latitude to play that role, or that the preservation of the student-athlete in higher education adds richness and diversity to intercollegiate athletics and is entirely consistent with the goals of the Sherman Act. But consistent with the Sherman Act, the role of the NCAA must be to preserve a tradition that might otherwise die; rules that restrict output are hardly consistent with this role. Today we hold only that the record supports the District Court's conclusion that by curtailing output and blunting the ability of member institutions to respond to consumer preference, the NCAA has restricted rather than enhanced the place of intercollegiate athletics in the Nation's life. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=468&invol=85

Good catch.

 

[50PoundHead]

Good points by many, particularly wren, Pompous Elitist, and Dean S.

My invective tends to get the best of me at times, but Jim Delany makes $1.8 million per year. To me, the discussion pretty much ends there. He's a rich white guy helping out other rich white guys. He's in the penthouse of jock-sniffers and I think his testimony is rife with scare tactics.

Seems the Olympics had this discussion a generation ago and the Olympics somehow survived. There are a number of relatively easy ways to get through this, but the jockocracy seems to want to drive the enterprise off the cliff instead of compromising a micron.

 

[Deleted_User]

Today the Supreme Court struck down the President's recess appointments, including on the NLRB. Time to see if the guy who ruled on Northwestern was a recess appointment or not.

 

[GoldyIsABoss]

Just give every player 4 year scholarships, long term health benefits, and the ability to profit off their name by approved companies by the NCAA. Then, if players don't like it, don't play.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Today the Supreme Court struck down the President's recess appointments, including on the NLRB. Time to see if the guy who ruled on Northwestern was a recess appointment or not.

It doesn't matter. They can simply reaffirm all decisions. It isn't a problem.