(12-10-2018 12:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:28 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Did this case wrap up and is now in the hands of the Judge?

Possibly. I haven't seen a recent posting or news headline on it.

Closing arguments ended last week.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...alignment/

Yep, that's the same piece as the OP. I had already forgotten that it had moved to deliberation. I suspect we won't hear anything until sometime next year. The outcome of that case however could change everything.

If it does the timing of it might be helpful for determining the shape of our sports, but given that it might come at a time of great political upheaval both here and abroad, I'm a bit concerned about how receptive the public will be to yet another of their traditions being radically altered.

Sociologically speaking too much change too fast in too many aspects of life makes people become insular and dampens their support and trust in everything.

(12-10-2018 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:28 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Did this case wrap up and is now in the hands of the Judge?

Possibly. I haven't seen a recent posting or news headline on it.

Closing arguments ended last week.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...alignment/

Yep, that's the same piece as the OP. I had already forgotten that it had moved to deliberation. I suspect we won't hear anything until sometime next year. The outcome of that case however could change everything.

If it does the timing of it might be helpful for determining the shape of our sports, but given that it might come at a time of great political upheaval both here and abroad, I'm a bit concerned about how receptive the public will be to yet another of their traditions being radically altered.

Sociologically speaking too much change too fast in too many aspects of life makes people become insular and dampens their support and trust in everything.

τέλος του κόσμου

Social change and the PC police are tearing this country apart. I just returned from a long cruise and I noticed this regarding the Caribbean islanders. They love each other, respect each other, and speak their minds without fear. Feelings do not get hurt. No one is tearing down statues of the sugar plantation owners. They accept their history, without malice, and as a simple part of history. No one is fussing about symbols of religions or faiths. No gay parades to prove they are "equal". No one there even cares. They are not banning Christmas cartoons. They wake up every day and are thankful for what they have. I felt this peace and freedom right up until we docked in San Juan. So many stupid laws and rules that you feel like you are back in prison. I really envy those little islands.

(12-11-2018 12:10 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Social change and the PC police are tearing this country apart. I just returned from a long cruise and I noticed this regarding the Caribbean islanders. They love each other, respect each other, and speak their minds without fear. Feelings do not get hurt. No one is tearing down statues of the sugar plantation owners. They accept their history, without malice, and as a simple part of history. No one is fussing about symbols of religions or faiths. No gay parades to prove they are "equal". No one there even cares. They are not banning Christmas cartoons. They wake up every day and are thankful for what they have. I felt this peace and freedom right up until we docked in San Juan. So many stupid laws and rules that you feel like you are back in prison. I really envy those little islands.

Nice post Medic! Only dictators and socialists fear images. Kings bask in them. Democracies use them to commemorate their history. But if you think of radical Islamists as dictators, and they are, and the thought control socialists whether they are of communist or fascist roots, the first thing they tear down are the icons of history, cultural identity, and freedoms. Give it time and the Statue of Liberty will be under assault.

Legal reporter Dorothy M. Atkins @doratki is live tweeting today's hearing, if anyone's interested. (There was a motion to strike something from the plaintiffs' closing argument.)

(12-10-2018 06:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:28 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Did this case wrap up and is now in the hands of the Judge?

Possibly. I haven't seen a recent posting or news headline on it.

Closing arguments ended last week.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...alignment/

Yep, that's the same piece as the OP. I had already forgotten that it had moved to deliberation. I suspect we won't hear anything until sometime next year. The outcome of that case however could change everything.

If it does the timing of it might be helpful for determining the shape of our sports, but given that it might come at a time of great political upheaval both here and abroad, I'm a bit concerned about how receptive the public will be to yet another of their traditions being radically altered.

Sociologically speaking too much change too fast in too many aspects of life makes people become insular and dampens their support and trust in everything.

τέλος του κόσμου

As we know it, and the SEC feels fine.

(12-18-2018 03:51 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 06:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Possibly. I haven't seen a recent posting or news headline on it.

Closing arguments ended last week.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...alignment/

Yep, that's the same piece as the OP. I had already forgotten that it had moved to deliberation. I suspect we won't hear anything until sometime next year. The outcome of that case however could change everything.

If it does the timing of it might be helpful for determining the shape of our sports, but given that it might come at a time of great political upheaval both here and abroad, I'm a bit concerned about how receptive the public will be to yet another of their traditions being radically altered.

Sociologically speaking too much change too fast in too many aspects of life makes people become insular and dampens their support and trust in everything.

τέλος του κόσμου

As we know it, and the SEC feels fine.

REM fan?

Bump to say that oral arguments before the appeals panel are scheduled for March 9 @ 4:30 EST and can be seen here:

https://youtu.be/n1FcKbgmJ3c

Quote:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GOULD, and M. SMITH, Jr., Circuit Judges

Shawne Alston v. NCAA - An appeal and a cross-appeal from the district court's judgment after bench trial and permanent injunction against NCAA rules regarding compensation for student-athletes

20 minutes per side

Defendants want the district court's decision overturned and plaintiffs want broader relief.

Documents

Chief Judge Thomas sat on the O'Bannon panel where he dissented from the majority over the issue of annual $5,000 deferred NIL payments. His opinion in that case can be read here on pages 64-73.

(03-06-2020 09:55 PM)chester Wrote:  Bump to say that oral arguments before the appeals panel are scheduled for March 9 @ 4:30 EST and can be seen here:

https://youtu.be/n1FcKbgmJ3c

Quote:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GOULD, and M. SMITH, Jr., Circuit Judges

Shawne Alston v. NCAA - An appeal and a cross-appeal from the district court's judgment after bench trial and permanent injunction against NCAA rules regarding compensation for student-athletes

20 minutes per side

Defendants want the district court's decision overturned and plaintiffs want broader relief.

Documents

Chief Judge Thomas sat on the O'Bannon panel where he dissented from the majority over the issue of annual $5,000 deferred NIL payments. His opinion in that case can be read here on pages 64-73.

Well, having read most of those documents and having watched that hearing twice, in my inexpert, unlawyerly opinion, there's little chance the Ninth will overturn the district's decision. Question is, will they merely uphold that decision or will they remand the case back to Judge Wilken with instruction to enjoin all caps. (Recall, plaintiffs want individual conferences to have the ability to set their own compensation rules, an outcome that would open a market for the athletic services of players.)

Also, regardless of what happens, one or both sides are sure to appeal to the Supremes. Will SCOTUS hear the case? (They declined to hear O'Bannon)

(03-09-2020 06:50 PM)chester Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:55 PM)chester Wrote:  Bump to say that oral arguments before the appeals panel are scheduled for March 9 @ 4:30 EST and can be seen here:

https://youtu.be/n1FcKbgmJ3c

Quote:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GOULD, and M. SMITH, Jr., Circuit Judges

Shawne Alston v. NCAA - An appeal and a cross-appeal from the district court's judgment after bench trial and permanent injunction against NCAA rules regarding compensation for student-athletes

20 minutes per side

Defendants want the district court's decision overturned and plaintiffs want broader relief.

Documents

Chief Judge Thomas sat on the O'Bannon panel where he dissented from the majority over the issue of annual $5,000 deferred NIL payments. His opinion in that case can be read here on pages 64-73.

Well, having read most of those documents and having watched that hearing twice, in my inexpert, unlawyerly opinion, there's little chance the Ninth will overturn the district's decision. Question is, will they merely uphold that decision or will they remand the case back to Judge Wilken with instruction to enjoin all caps. (Recall, plaintiffs want individual conferences to have the ability to set their own compensation rules, an outcome that would open a market for the athletic services of players.)

Also, regardless of what happens, one or both sides are sure to appeal to the Supremes. Will SCOTUS hear the case? (They declined to hear O'Bannon)

One never really knows.

During my 32 year legal career, I walked out of many appellate arguments thinking that I just got my ass kicked.

When the decision came out, our side won.

I had many that went exactly the opposite way too.

(03-09-2020 07:28 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 06:50 PM)chester Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:55 PM)chester Wrote:  Bump to say that oral arguments before the appeals panel are scheduled for March 9 @ 4:30 EST and can be seen here:

https://youtu.be/n1FcKbgmJ3c

Quote:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GOULD, and M. SMITH, Jr., Circuit Judges

Shawne Alston v. NCAA - An appeal and a cross-appeal from the district court's judgment after bench trial and permanent injunction against NCAA rules regarding compensation for student-athletes

20 minutes per side

Defendants want the district court's decision overturned and plaintiffs want broader relief.

Documents

Chief Judge Thomas sat on the O'Bannon panel where he dissented from the majority over the issue of annual $5,000 deferred NIL payments. His opinion in that case can be read here on pages 64-73.

Well, having read most of those documents and having watched that hearing twice, in my inexpert, unlawyerly opinion, there's little chance the Ninth will overturn the district's decision. Question is, will they merely uphold that decision or will they remand the case back to Judge Wilken with instruction to enjoin all caps. (Recall, plaintiffs want individual conferences to have the ability to set their own compensation rules, an outcome that would open a market for the athletic services of players.)

Also, regardless of what happens, one or both sides are sure to appeal to the Supremes. Will SCOTUS hear the case? (They declined to hear O'Bannon)

One never really knows.

During my 32 year legal career, I walked out of many appellate arguments thinking that I just got my ass kicked.

When the decision came out, our side won.

I had many that went exactly the opposite way too.

Crap! I'm looking for an anchor.

(Thank you, BTW)

TerryD, anyone, what did Judge Smith mean by possibly rehearing O'Bannon "en banc"? (28:00 mark) I've not heard of such a thing. Looked it up and am still trying to grasp...

EDIT, he had stated earlier that he was "troubled" by O'Bannon because (paraphrasing) it focused more on consumers than offended sellers.

(03-09-2020 10:56 PM)chester Wrote:  TerryD, anyone, what did Judge Smith mean by possibly rehearing O'Bannon "en banc"? (28:00 mark) I've not heard of such a thing. Looked it up and am still trying to grasp...

EDIT, he had stated earlier that he was "troubled" by O'Bannon because (paraphrasing) it focused more on consumers than offended sellers.

The internet gives this definition:

Quote:In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel of judges selected from them. The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen.

Which honestly helps me very little.

(03-12-2020 01:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:56 PM)chester Wrote:  TerryD, anyone, what did Judge Smith mean by possibly rehearing O'Bannon "en banc"? (28:00 mark) I've not heard of such a thing. Looked it up and am still trying to grasp...

EDIT, he had stated earlier that he was "troubled" by O'Bannon because (paraphrasing) it focused more on consumers than offended sellers.

The internet gives this definition:

Quote:In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel of judges selected from them. The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen.

Which honestly helps me very little.

I wonder if it means that the 9th could, if it wanted, get together and uncap direct NIL-related compensation, which the NCAA sets at zero.

Whoa, that could leave schools in Florida and Colorado (and probably elsewhere before long) in a bad way. They've convinced their legislatures to prohibit them from paying players for their NIL.

Though I guess laws can amended...

(03-12-2020 01:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:56 PM)chester Wrote:  TerryD, anyone, what did Judge Smith mean by possibly rehearing O'Bannon "en banc"? (28:00 mark) I've not heard of such a thing. Looked it up and am still trying to grasp...

EDIT, he had stated earlier that he was "troubled" by O'Bannon because (paraphrasing) it focused more on consumers than offended sellers.

The internet gives this definition:

Quote:In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel of judges selected from them. The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen.

Which honestly helps me very little.

Most appellate arguments are held before a three judge panel.

Some cases are deemed so important that all judges in the appellate court should hear the case, "en banc".....not just a three judge panel.

Well, that was quick

"...we neither vacate nor broaden the injunction, but affirm."

Via Mit Winter (@WinterSportsLaw):

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o...-15566.pdf

Recommend to anyone who might be interested in reviewing some but maybe not all of that 67 page document that you begin with Judge Smith's opinion, which starts on page 57.

It's clear that Smith thinks college athletes are being royally screwed over but that his hands are tied because of faulty, established Rule of Reason framework.

EDIT: Hey, let Judge Smith put his money where his mouth is and call for a vote on a rehearing of O'Bannon en banc. (Thank you, Terry )

So, setting aside Alston and the prospect of SCOTUS involvement, there might be two antitrust suits on the horizon. The NCAA appears to have bought itself some time by declaring in 2019 that any permissible NIL-related compensation to athletes must be "tethered to education."

Quote:Finally, Student-Athletes argue that the NCAA may no longer rely on O’Bannon II’s conclusion that NCAA limits on cash payments untethered to education are critical to preserving the distinction between college and professional sports now that it has "endorse[d]" the very "same NIL benefits" at issue there. This argument is premature. As it stands, the NCAA has not endorsed cash compensation untethered to education; instead, it has undertaken to comply with the FPP Act in a manner that is consistent with O’Bannon II—that is, by loosening its restrictions to permit NIL benefits that are "tethered to education."

If the NCAA does allow NIL compensation in ways untethered to education in Jan 2021 or later, it would surely lead to another O'Bannon-type case.

Then there's this:

Quote:In March 2014, while the NCAA was litigating O’Bannon I, FBS football and D1 men’s and women’s basketball players filed several antitrust actions against the NCAA and eleven D1 conferences that were transferred to and, with one exception, consolidated before the same district court presiding over O’Bannon I. Rather than confining their challenge to rules prohibiting NIL compensation, StudentAthletes sought to dismantle the NCAA's entire compensation framework.

...Believe that one exception is the Jenkins aka "Kessler" case. I had thought it was consolidated with Alston but Gabe Feldman of Tulane Sports Law (@SportsLawGuy) recently stated in a podcast that Jenkins might be still be tried in New Jersey... Have since learned that the NCAA and other Alston defendants asked Judge Wilkens after her ruling in Alston to dismiss Jenkins. To my knowledge, she's not yet taken any action therewith.

(05-18-2020 10:17 PM)chester Wrote:  So, setting aside Alston and the prospect of SCOTUS involvement, there might be two antitrust suits on the horizon. The NCAA appears to have bought itself some time by declaring in 2019 that any permissible NIL-related compensation to athletes must be "tethered to education."

Quote:Finally, Student-Athletes argue that the NCAA may no longer rely on O’Bannon II’s conclusion that NCAA limits on cash payments untethered to education are critical to preserving the distinction between college and professional sports now that it has "endorse[d]" the very "same NIL benefits" at issue there. This argument is premature. As it stands, the NCAA has not endorsed cash compensation untethered to education; instead, it has undertaken to comply with the FPP Act in a manner that is consistent with O’Bannon II—that is, by loosening its restrictions to permit NIL benefits that are "tethered to education."

If the NCAA does allow NIL compensation in ways untethered to education in Jan 2021 or later, it would surely lead to another O'Bannon-type case.

Then there's this:

Quote:In March 2014, while the NCAA was litigating O’Bannon I, FBS football and D1 men’s and women’s basketball players filed several antitrust actions against the NCAA and eleven D1 conferences that were transferred to and, with one exception, consolidated before the same district court presiding over O’Bannon I. Rather than confining their challenge to rules prohibiting NIL compensation, StudentAthletes sought to dismantle the NCAA's entire compensation framework.

...Believe that one exception is the Jenkins aka "Kessler" case. I had thought it was consolidated with Alston but Gabe Feldman of Tulane Sports Law (@SportsLawGuy) recently stated in a podcast that Jenkins might be still be tried in New Jersey... Have since learned that the NCAA and other Alston defendants asked Judge Wilkens after her ruling in Alston to dismiss Jenkins. To my knowledge, she's not yet taken any action therewith.

The P5 needs to acquiesce to these pending changes and use it as a reason to leave the NCAA (which will only stall) behind. With the world of hurt the universities have suffered with the virus shutdown maximizing our revenue in basketball is as worthy of goal (ala OU/UGa vs the NCAA) as we could possibly have. We can make the changes the norm quickly and move past the NCAA and past the court rulings and into some much needed stable operations by utilizing this moment in time to make changes. Otherwise the NCAA is going to incumber each school with their stalling tactics. If we stay that course we'll all suffer all the more.

The golden days of private contributions to athletic funds is probably past peak now and with the looming economic fallout likely not to return, at least not for many years. We need to maximize all revenue streams as soon as possible. It's time to embrace the changes and move on.

(05-19-2020 12:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:17 PM)chester Wrote:  So, setting aside Alston and the prospect of SCOTUS involvement, there might be two antitrust suits on the horizon. The NCAA appears to have bought itself some time by declaring in 2019 that any permissible NIL-related compensation to athletes must be "tethered to education."

Quote:Finally, Student-Athletes argue that the NCAA may no longer rely on O’Bannon II’s conclusion that NCAA limits on cash payments untethered to education are critical to preserving the distinction between college and professional sports now that it has "endorse[d]" the very "same NIL benefits" at issue there. This argument is premature. As it stands, the NCAA has not endorsed cash compensation untethered to education; instead, it has undertaken to comply with the FPP Act in a manner that is consistent with O’Bannon II—that is, by loosening its restrictions to permit NIL benefits that are "tethered to education."

If the NCAA does allow NIL compensation in ways untethered to education in Jan 2021 or later, it would surely lead to another O'Bannon-type case.

Then there's this:

Quote:In March 2014, while the NCAA was litigating O’Bannon I, FBS football and D1 men’s and women’s basketball players filed several antitrust actions against the NCAA and eleven D1 conferences that were transferred to and, with one exception, consolidated before the same district court presiding over O’Bannon I. Rather than confining their challenge to rules prohibiting NIL compensation, StudentAthletes sought to dismantle the NCAA's entire compensation framework.

...Believe that one exception is the Jenkins aka "Kessler" case. I had thought it was consolidated with Alston but Gabe Feldman of Tulane Sports Law (@SportsLawGuy) recently stated in a podcast that Jenkins might be still be tried in New Jersey... Have since learned that the NCAA and other Alston defendants asked Judge Wilkens after her ruling in Alston to dismiss Jenkins. To my knowledge, she's not yet taken any action therewith.

The P5 needs to acquiesce to these pending changes and use it as a reason to leave the NCAA (which will only stall) behind. With the world of hurt the universities have suffered with the virus shutdown maximizing our revenue in basketball is as worthy of goal (ala OU/UGa vs the NCAA) as we could possibly have. We can make the changes the norm quickly and move past the NCAA and past the court rulings and into some much needed stable operations by utilizing this moment in time to make changes. Otherwise the NCAA is going to incumber each school with their stalling tactics. If we stay that course we'll all suffer all the more.

The golden days of private contributions to athletic funds is probably past peak now and with the looming economic fallout likely not to return, at least not for many years. We need to maximize all revenue streams as soon as possible. It's time to embrace the changes and move on.

I think you make a good point...our revenue streams going forward are going to be tighter without some changes.

We need to look at what it takes to make basketball a genuinely prosperous outlet as well as maximizing the potential of any sport that might bring positive results.

With that said, my concern would be over some of the non-revenue sports that most Power athletic departments fund. There is a degree to which we could argue the moneymakers in college athletics will be "fine" going forward, but we must ask the question whether or not some of the sports we sponsor are truly beneficial. There is a difference between the ability and the need.

That's not to say I would gut these athletic departments at every possible excess, but I think it's only fair to ask what is a reasonable expense.