Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Hoo's That, post: 3171721, member: 3609"]
The way these usually run is that it is a restraining order against the NCAA from preventing the player from participating by enforcing sanctions against the school.  The school/player usually wins at the lower court level because the trial judge is sympathetic to the school/player over the NCAA and, if the trial judge rules against the school/player, they go to different trial judges until they get the restraining order (AKA judge shopping).  The school/player usually loses at the appeals court level and the school is whacked for using an ineligible player, as threatened in the Tweet [USER=652]Alsacs[/USER] posted.  
This is why Congress needs to specify which Federal court will hear lawsuits against which sports governing body.  If the district of Federal courts in Illinois that includes Chicago (just to pick a place) was designated as the only court that could hear cases against the NCAA, there would be far fewer of these baloney orders issued.  And, yes, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to specify where these cases can be heard.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?