*Telegram article Lawsuit challenging ship limits

OldTimer · September 17, 2005

In a college football section the paper reported a federal judge in Seattle has cleared for trial a lawsuit challenging NCAA scholarship limits filed in behalf of walk on FB players who are shut out of financial benefits. The complaint filed by a U of Washington player who lettered in 1997-99, contends the NCAA ship limits exploits walk on players who make up nearly a 3rd of Div 1 A college FB rosters.

Lawsuit seeks an end to the NCAA limit on Div 1 A scholarships plus damages for FB walkons who were harmed by the policy.

THIS WILL REALLY HURT SMALLER COLLEGES FB PROGRAMS IF LARGER BCS SCHOOLS HAVE UNLIMITED SCHOLARSHIP CAPABALITY. THEY WOULD STOCKPILE PLAYERS WITH THEIR UNLIMITED FINANCIAL ABILITIES WHICH WOULD LIMIT PLAYERS AVAILABILITY TO SMALLER AND MID LEVEL SCHOOLS.

buff64 · September 17, 2005

In a college football section the paper reported a federal judge in Seattle has cleared for trial a lawsuit challenging NCAA scholarship limits filed in behalf of walk on FB players who are shut out of financial benefits. The complaint filed by a U of Washington player who lettered in 1997-99, contends the NCAA ship limits exploits walk on players who make up nearly a 3rd of Div 1 A college FB rosters.
Lawsuit seeks an end to the NCAA limit on Div 1 A scholarships plus damages for FB walkons who were harmed by the policy.
THIS WILL REALLY HURT SMALLER COLLEGES FB PROGRAMS IF LARGER BCS SCHOOLS HAVE UNLIMITED SCHOLARSHIP CAPABALITY. THEY WOULD STOCKPILE PLAYERS WITH THEIR UNLIMITED FINANCIAL ABILITIES WHICH WOULD LIMIT PLAYERS AVAILABILITY TO SMALLER AND MID LEVEL SCHOOLS.
←

Just like the past. UT and I'm sure others ,recruited players just to keep them away from rivals.

Arkstfan · September 17, 2005

Humm probably a waste of time. From a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the NCAA.

Rather, what is critical is that this case involves an industry in which horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all.
As Judge Bork has noted: "ome activities can only be carried out jointly. Perhaps the leading example is league sports. When a league of professional lacrosse teams is formed, it would be pointless to declare their cooperation illegal on the ground that there are no other professional lacrosse teams." R. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox 278 (1978). What the NCAA and its member institutions market in this case is competition itself - contests between competing institutions. Of course, this would be completely ineffective if there were no rules on which the competitors agreed to create and define the competition to be marketed. A myriad of rules affecting such matters as the size of the field, the number of players on a team, and the extent to which physical violence is to be encouraged or proscribed, all must be agreed upon, and all restrain the manner in which institutions compete. Moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football - college football. The identification of this "product" with an academic tradition differentiates [468 U.S. 85, 102] college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the "product," athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like. And the integrity of the "product" cannot be preserved except by mutual agreement; if an institution adopted such restrictions unilaterally, its effectiveness as a competitor on the playing field might soon be destroyed. Thus, the NCAA plays a vital role in enabling college football to preserve its character, and as a result enables a product to be marketed which might otherwise be unavailable. In performing this role, its actions widen consumer choice - not only the choices available to sports fans but also those available to athletes - and hence can be viewed as procompetitive. 24 [468 U.S. 85, 103]

and from the same case

Our decision not to apply a per se rule to this case rests in large part on our recognition that a certain degree of cooperation is necessary if the type of competition that petitioner and its member institutions seek to market is to be preserved. 61 It is reasonable to assume that most of the regulatory controls of the NCAA are justifiable means of fostering competition among amateur athletic teams and therefore procompetitive because they enhance public interest in intercollegiate athletics. The specific restraints on football telecasts that are challenged in this case do not, however, fit into the same mold as do rules defining the conditions of the contest, the eligibility of participants, or the manner in which members of a joint enterprise shall share the responsibilities and the benefits of the total venture.
The NCAA does not claim that its television plan has equalized or is intended to equalize competition within any [468 U.S. 85, 118] one league. 62 The plan is nationwide in scope and there is no single league or tournament in which all college football teams compete. There is no evidence of any intent to equalize the strength of teams in Division I-A with those in Division II or Division III, and not even a colorable basis for giving colleges that have no football program at all a voice in the management of the revenues generated by the football programs at other schools. 63 The interest in maintaining a competitive balance that is asserted by the NCAA as a justification for regulating all television of intercollegiate football is not related to any neutral standard or to any readily identifiable group of competitors. [468 U.S. 85, 119]
The television plan is not even arguably tailored to serve such an interest. It does not regulate the amount of money that any college may spend on its football program, nor the way in which the colleges may use the revenues that are generated by their football programs, whether derived from the sale of television rights, the sale of tickets, or the sale of concessions or program advertising. 64 The plan simply imposes a restriction on one source of revenue that is more important to some colleges than to others. There is no evidence that this restriction produces any greater measure of equality throughout the NCAA than would a restriction on alumni donations, tuition rates, or any other revenue-producing activity. At the same time, as the District Court found, the NCAA imposes a variety of other restrictions designed to preserve amateurism which are much better tailored to the goal of competitive balance than is the television plan, and which are "clearly sufficient" to preserve competitive balance to the extent it is within the NCAA's power to do so. 65 And much more than speculation supported the District Court's findings on this score. No other NCAA sport employs a similar plan, and in particular the court found that in the most closely analogous sport, college basketball, competitive balance has been maintained without resort to a restrictive television plan

Layman translation.

I order to create some degree of competitive balance the NCAA may limit scholarships and squad sizes (which it does) and it may limit budgets and fund raising (which it does not do) and limit how revenue is spent (which only does in limited areas). That's a 21 year old decision and unlikely to be over-turned.

good_ken · September 17, 2005

So is the same walk-on player going to sue his current employer when he doesn't get the same raise as his higher achieving co-workers do?

OldTimer · September 17, 2005

Humm probably a waste of time. From a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the NCAA.
and from the same case
Layman translation.
I order to create some degree of competitive balance the NCAA may limit scholarships and squad sizes (which it does) and it may limit budgets and fund raising (which it does not do) and limit how revenue is spent (which only does in limited areas). That's a 21 year old decision and unlikely to be over-turned.
←

I hope you are correct, but remember Washington is one on the most liberal states in America and they are in the 9th circuit which is the most liberal judicial jurisdiction...remember the Pledge of allegience disallowance which rules in the 18 states of the 9th circuit and which just last week was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge.

tonyhuntoon · September 17, 2005

Won't go far. They certainly DON'T have to "walk-on" at 1-A schools. Most of those guys could probably get scholarships at 1-AA or Division 2 schools. With Title IX I really doubt many schools could "afford" the additional scholarships.