Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Waltdods, post: 1101259, member: 2932"]
Yea, agree this was a very intentional strategy to get a win, even a relatively narrow one.

I think your second question is the 64000$ one. I don't think this decision necessarily leads to the results you list, though it definitely could. The court did uphold some limits on the endorsement money, and strongly implied that the limit would be $5k.  Simplifying a bunch, the NCAA is allowed the restraint of trade (e.g., prohibiting payments beyond scholarship money) as long as there is a (1) pro-competitive benefit and (2) the restraint is the least restrictive way of achieving that benefit.  The O'Bannon opinion is more of a mixed bag on this first question than it seems on first glance - the court tears the amateurism arguments apart but then when doing the balancing analysis seems to recognize some benefits.  On the second question, I think the NCAA could argue that the court effectively adopted the rule required by the injunction as the least restrictive alternative and therefore those limits should be allowed.

The court could have said flat out that the benefits the NCAA is claiming are bullsh#t (and it kind of seemed like that's what the judge thought).  Then it could have just struck down the rule without bothering to look at the least restrictive ways of achieving the goal.  By not doing so, it has (arguably) recognized these benefits that can then justify various other limitations.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?