+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies (/thread-805005.html)
Pages: 1 2
Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - MinerInWisconsin - 01-10-2017 12:50 PM
One rule in particular bothers me, and maybe some of you. The rule that requires FCS programs wanting to move to FBS to have an invitation from a current FBS conference has the purpose of keeping the number of FBS schools down. While that may seem a good idea to all those that are already FBS, it seems to me to be too arbitrary to withstand a legal challenge.
If school A has the required circumstances to move to FBS except for the invite, could the rule be successfully challenged? If independents are allowed in FBS then why can't additional independents be accommodated? If, on the other hand, all schools must belong to a conference in order to be a part of FBS, then the rule might make some sense.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - arkstfan - 01-10-2017 01:06 PM
(01-10-2017 12:50 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: One rule in particular bothers me, and maybe some of you. The rule that requires FCS programs wanting to move to FBS to have an invitation from a current FBS conference has the purpose of keeping the number of FBS schools down. While that may seem a good idea to all those that are already FBS, it seems to me to be too arbitrary to withstand a legal challenge.
If school A has the required circumstances to move to FBS except for the invite, could the rule be successfully challenged? If independents are allowed in FBS then why can't additional independents be accommodated? If, on the other hand, all schools must belong to a conference in order to be a part of FBS, then the rule might make some sense.
The FCS/FBS reclassification rule serves a decent purpose. Over the years reclassifying teams had to demonstrate that they had four years of complying schedules and invariably someone would have a game cancelled or pushed to another year which created a compliance problem for the NCAA.
Joining a conference eliminates the need for the NCAA to stay involved monitoring future schedules, they can just wait and see if each actual schedule played is compliant.
Now all that said.
I suspect if it is challenged a court would say the invite is an undue burden on commerce and force the NCAA back to the old rule.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - ChrisLords - 01-10-2017 01:09 PM
I like that rule. There's too many teams moving up to FCS as it is. Does every team that moves up to FCS independence get $1 million from the CFP every year like the G5 teams that are in conferences? That money has to come from some where.
No, I don't think the rule will hold up to any legal challenge.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - NoDak - 01-10-2017 01:12 PM
(01-10-2017 01:09 PM)ChrisLords Wrote: I like that rule. There's too many teams moving up to FCS as it is. Does every team that moves up to FCS independence get $1 million from the CFP every year like the G5 teams that are in conferences? That money has to come from some where.
No, I don't think the rule will hold up to any legal challenge.
Only conferences that signed the CFP contract get $1 million per team up to 10 team, P5 excepted of course.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - Frank the Tank - 01-10-2017 01:14 PM
(01-10-2017 12:50 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: One rule in particular bothers me, and maybe some of you. The rule that requires FCS programs wanting to move to FBS to have an invitation from a current FBS conference has the purpose of keeping the number of FBS schools down. While that may seem a good idea to all those that are already FBS, it seems to me to be too arbitrary to withstand a legal challenge.
If school A has the required circumstances to move to FBS except for the invite, could the rule be successfully challenged? If independents are allowed in FBS then why can't additional independents be accommodated? If, on the other hand, all schools must belong to a conference in order to be a part of FBS, then the rule might make some sense.
From a personal standpoint, I believe that any school that meets the prescribed requirements of FBS ought to be able to move up as an independent regardless of whether there's a conference invitation. If a school meets the requirements, then they should be able to move. (By the same token, no conference should be forced to take a school that it doesn't want, either.)
That being said, I'm not sure if there's a great legal case in practicality. In order for a school to have standing to bring the legal case in the first place, it would likely need to fulfill all of the FBS requirements outside of the conference invitation and then show it was damaged by the conference invitation requirement. This is a bit of a catch-22 since a school likely wouldn't even attempt to fulfill the FBS requirements in today's world without a conference invitation in place.
Is there more of a general antitrust suit against the NCAA that's possible? In theory, yes. The NCAA is a walking antitrust violation for a variety of reasons and the Supreme Court said as much in the University of Oklahoma vs. NCAA case in the 1980s that created the college sports financial system that we see today. However, that can bring up a "penny wise, pound foolish" situation since you could also argue that the redistribution of revenue from power conferences to smaller conferences from the NCAA Tournament is an antitrust violation... and the Division I schools that would conceivably be looking to move from FCS to FBS are generally much more dependent on NCAA Tournament money than they are on even the possibility of G5-level FBS money. Basically every school in the NCAA needs to preserve the entity's ability to get around antitrust laws in a manner that virtually no other business in America is able to do (even the P5 schools need this with respect to avoiding paying salaries to athletes), so no school would really want to challenge the NCAA in practicality.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - ark30inf - 01-10-2017 01:22 PM
If no FBS conference wants to associate with Idaho State because of geography...that's ok.
If no FBS conference wants to associate with Liberty because they are religious...or with Grambling because they are black....that is problematic.
Of course you would have to prove it with emails or something.
It could also be problematic if you could prove some sort of price fixing or deliberate conspiracy to restrain trade and no legit reason to exclude.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - Wedge - 01-10-2017 01:30 PM
The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.
No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."
Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - RutgersGuy - 01-10-2017 01:35 PM
(01-10-2017 01:22 PM)ark30inf Wrote: If no FBS conference wants to associate with Idaho State because of geography...that's ok.
If no FBS conference wants to associate with Liberty because they are religious...or with Grambling because they are black....that is problematic.
Of course you would have to prove it with emails or something.
It could also be problematic if you could prove some sort of price fixing or deliberate conspiracy to restrain trade and no legit reason to exclude.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
No it's not. Conferences are public clubs and if a conference like the Pac-12 doesn't want to associate with BYU because of their religious beliefs that fly in the face of the standards the secular Pac-12 schools hold themselves to then they have the right to not associate with them. You can't force a school into a conference.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - MinerInWisconsin - 01-10-2017 01:43 PM
(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.
No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."
Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.
I would be shocked if a school wanting FBS enough to challenge the NCAA in court would use such an argument. More likely they would argue that the requirement to build towards FBS status from FCS would be agreed to but they certainly could not expect to host an FBS school while they were FCS because that just doesn't happen. So they might argue that "we have the stadium, we have the support, we have the money and desire to make the transition over X amount of time". I would think a reasonable approach and accommodation could be agreed to.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - Frank the Tank - 01-10-2017 01:45 PM
(01-10-2017 01:22 PM)ark30inf Wrote: If no FBS conference wants to associate with Idaho State because of geography...that's ok.
If no FBS conference wants to associate with Liberty because they are religious...or with Grambling because they are black....that is problematic.
Of course you would have to prove it with emails or something.
It could also be problematic if you could prove some sort of price fixing or deliberate conspiracy to restrain trade and no legit reason to exclude.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
A conference isn't going to deny Liberty (or BYU or any other religious school) based on religion per se, but they can certainly deny a school for (a) academic freedom reasons (e.g. denying professors tenure due to, say, performing scientific research or teaching scientific principles that might be contrary to religious doctrine) and/or (b) situations where a school's policy (even if it's based on a sincere religious belief) would be in conflict with the conference's and/or its members' anti-discrimination policies (e.g. protections for LGBT people).
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - ark30inf - 01-10-2017 01:46 PM
(01-10-2017 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:(01-10-2017 01:22 PM)ark30inf Wrote: If no FBS conference wants to associate with Idaho State because of geography...that's ok.
If no FBS conference wants to associate with Liberty because they are religious...or with Grambling because they are black....that is problematic.
Of course you would have to prove it with emails or something.
It could also be problematic if you could prove some sort of price fixing or deliberate conspiracy to restrain trade and no legit reason to exclude.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
No it's not. Conferences are public clubs and if a conference like the Pac-12 doesn't want to associate with BYU because of their religious beliefs that fly in the face of the standards the secular Pac-12 schools hold themselves to then they have the right to not associate with them. You can't force a school into a conference.
The issue is not about allowing them into a conference because of religious beliefs...its about not allowing them into FBS as a whole. Subtle but real difference.
Its like if you have a 2nd Amendment right to own a gun.....but nobody anywhere will sell you a gun....do you really have the right?
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - RutgersGuy - 01-10-2017 01:51 PM
(01-10-2017 01:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:(01-10-2017 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:(01-10-2017 01:22 PM)ark30inf Wrote: If no FBS conference wants to associate with Idaho State because of geography...that's ok.
If no FBS conference wants to associate with Liberty because they are religious...or with Grambling because they are black....that is problematic.
Of course you would have to prove it with emails or something.
It could also be problematic if you could prove some sort of price fixing or deliberate conspiracy to restrain trade and no legit reason to exclude.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
No it's not. Conferences are public clubs and if a conference like the Pac-12 doesn't want to associate with BYU because of their religious beliefs that fly in the face of the standards the secular Pac-12 schools hold themselves to then they have the right to not associate with them. You can't force a school into a conference.
The issue is not about allowing them into a conference because of religious beliefs...its about not allowing them into FBS as a whole. Subtle but real difference.
Its like if you have a 2nd Amendment right to own a gun.....but nobody anywhere will sell you a gun....do you really have the right?
Your analogy is wrong. It's more like people have the 2nd amendment rights but I have the right as a property owner to not allow you in my store/building with said gun.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - Frank the Tank - 01-10-2017 01:52 PM
(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.
No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."
Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.
Agreed. This is what I meant when I said that it would be difficult for a school to actually have standing for a legal challenge. The school would need to fulfill all of the FBS requirements outside of the conference invitation rule and THEN show that it was damaged by such rule. The financial and scholarship requirements for FBS are one thing, but the scheduling requirement is much tougher for a school to do on its own. Also, it's much more difficult for a school to claim that the scheduling requirement is arbitrary compared to the conference invitation requirement.
Regardless, the practical point is that the NCAA conference invitation rule has its intended effect: a school isn't even going to attempt to meet the FBS requirements without a FBS conference invitation *first*, which means that no school would ever have the possibility of the standing to sue the NCAA regarding the FBS conference invitation rule in the first place.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - ark30inf - 01-10-2017 02:06 PM
(01-10-2017 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.
No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."
Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.
Agreed. This is what I meant when I said that it would be difficult for a school to actually have standing for a legal challenge. The school would need to fulfill all of the FBS requirements outside of the conference invitation rule and THEN show that it was damaged by such rule. The financial and scholarship requirements for FBS are one thing, but the scheduling requirement is much tougher for a school to do on its own. Also, it's much more difficult for a school to claim that the scheduling requirement is arbitrary compared to the conference invitation requirement.
Regardless, the practical point is that the NCAA conference invitation rule has its intended effect: a school isn't even going to attempt to meet the FBS requirements without a FBS conference invitation *first*, which means that no school would ever have the possibility of the standing to sue the NCAA regarding the FBS conference invitation rule in the first place.
Great arguments for a lawyer to make. Doesn't mean they will stand when a judge sees them.
One reason it is difficult to schedule FBS games prior to being FBS is the bowl eligibility rule. Plus conferences stating publicly that they are avoiding scheduling FCS at all. Plus the fact that the conferences excluding you already take most FBS game slots in-conference.
No guarantee a judge doesn't give them a break on tge FBS scheduling component if they meet all other FBS criteria.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - Wedge - 01-10-2017 02:09 PM
(01-10-2017 01:43 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.
No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."
Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.
I would be shocked if a school wanting FBS enough to challenge the NCAA in court would use such an argument. More likely they would argue that the requirement to build towards FBS status from FCS would be agreed to but they certainly could not expect to host an FBS school while they were FCS because that just doesn't happen. So they might argue that "we have the stadium, we have the support, we have the money and desire to make the transition over X amount of time". I would think a reasonable approach and accommodation could be agreed to.
Remember, as NMSU certainly has learned while trying to fill future schedules, no one can force other FBS teams to give you nonconference football games. You need at least 5 home games/year, so you can't only look for money games on the road. Your AD could call 75 other schools and ask for a home/home deal, and they could all say no.
Given that every current FBS conference plays at least 8 conference football games, conference membership guarantees 4 home and 8 total FBS opponents each year. That's why the conference-membership requirement for newcomers is a reasonable rule, and that's why no newcomer should be allowed to avoid it unless they have solid guarantees of enough FBS games each year for several years going forward.
I find it hard to imagine a court forcing the NCAA to accept unenforceable promises of trying to comply with the rules ("If you let us call ourselves FBS, we double-pinky promise that our AD's secretary will make lots of phone calls and ask lots of teams to play in our stadium") as an alternative to the existing rule that ensures a certain number of FBS opponents for several years for any FBS newcomer.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - MinerInWisconsin - 01-10-2017 02:26 PM
(01-10-2017 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:(01-10-2017 01:43 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.
No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."
Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.
I would be shocked if a school wanting FBS enough to challenge the NCAA in court would use such an argument. More likely they would argue that the requirement to build towards FBS status from FCS would be agreed to but they certainly could not expect to host an FBS school while they were FCS because that just doesn't happen. So they might argue that "we have the stadium, we have the support, we have the money and desire to make the transition over X amount of time". I would think a reasonable approach and accommodation could be agreed to.
Remember, as NMSU certainly has learned while trying to fill future schedules, no one can force other FBS teams to give you nonconference football games. You need at least 5 home games/year, so you can't only look for money games on the road. Your AD could call 75 other schools and ask for a home/home deal, and they could all say no.
Given that every current FBS conference plays at least 8 conference football games, conference membership guarantees 4 home and 8 total FBS opponents each year. That's why the conference-membership requirement for newcomers is a reasonable rule, and that's why no newcomer should be allowed to avoid it unless they have solid guarantees of enough FBS games each year for several years going forward.
I find it hard to imagine a court forcing the NCAA to accept unenforceable promises of trying to comply with the rules ("If you let us call ourselves FBS, we double-pinky promise that our AD's secretary will make lots of phone calls and ask lots of teams to play in our stadium") as an alternative to the existing rule that ensures a certain number of FBS opponents for several years for any FBS newcomer.
Double-pinky promises are almost always held up in court.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - ark30inf - 01-10-2017 03:49 PM
I always find it amusing when everyone is absolutely sure that Chief Justice Roberts will overrule Obamacare.
Judges listen to two sets of reasoning, not one. And then they also apply another set of reasoning....their own.
We will not schedule you because you are not FBS.
You cannot be FBS because we will not schedule you.
Believe me, the right judge on the right day can reasonably choose to end that logical circle.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - MJG - 01-10-2017 04:47 PM
What about a group of schools moving up as independents together.
Say six schools really want FBS and NMSu and U Mass needs future games.
Or even eight schools filing the scheduling requirement then whats the problem.
I know they don't count as FBS games for each other but that could also change.
They could agree to six to eight years worth of games vs each other.
That would eliminate schools being forced to leave better conferences for lesser FBS conferences .
Like U Mass a basketball school having to leave the much better A10.
James Madison having to turn down the SBC or leave the CAA a better fit.
Or Missouri ST deciding to stick with the Valley over the SBC.
It is a big enough decision when you don't automatically lose something like academic peers or ruin your basketball program.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - arkstfan - 01-10-2017 05:18 PM
(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.
No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."
Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.
From 1978 to around 2010 we had a system.
Teams had to play X% of games vs FBS/I-A opponents and to show contracts or memorandum of understanding showing they had scheduled the requisite number of games covering the next four years.
In reality, when the NCAA mandated five home games in 2004 (those of us in the poor neighborhoods call it the save us from ourselves rule), the possibility someone could successfully schedule enough games as a reclassifying independent became a true longshot.
If Liberty wants to be FBS in 2018 and can dig up five countable home games and get them contracted each year for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 I say welcome aboard.
RE: Arbitrary NCAA rules and legal remedies - DavidSt - 01-10-2017 05:24 PM
It depends for the schools. I knows that schools like Portland State, Eastern Washington, Montana, Montana State, Missouri State, Northern Iowa, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, South Dakota, McNeese State and more schools could find FBS schools to play them more than 1 time a year. Some of these schools that do get more than 1 or 2 games a year against FBS are usually the ones that can help any FBS school the SoS. Some of the schools are more regional that do help FBS schools, or P5 schools to save on money that could go towards FCOA. There could be some D2 schools that could help on saving money that could go towards FCOAs if they were full members of D1 like West Texas A&M, Colorado Mesa, Colorado State-Pueblo, Fort Hays State, the Dakota schools, Minnesota schools and so forth. NCAA seems to have meetings recently for all D1 and some D2 schools about FCOAs, the concussion issues and so forth. I could see that the NCAA could reform to have 4 levels at D1. FBS with the P5 plus MWC and AAC as tier, Tier 2 would be the rest of the FBS with Big Sky, MVFC, WAC, Southland, Southern, CAA plus some of the OVC and others that want FBS from the other conferences. FCS could be Tier 3 with GNAC, Lone Star, RMAC, GAC, Gulf South Conference, The midwest conference with Grand Valley State and them in it and several others to join. Tier 4 FCS would be Ivy League, The Pioneer League, the HBCU conferences of D1 and D2 and several top D3 conferences like the ones on the west coast. San Diego U. then could join the west coast California non-scholarship conference that was brought up. You then could have some like the all Wisconsin D3 conference be at Tier 4 level. This could break the basketball down to 2 divisions at D1.
Now, with this, you can bring up all the D2 and D3 schools that do sponsor a sport at D1 to join as well.
What about NAIA schools? There are some that sponsor club hockey, but they can't add it as a varsity sport since it is not sponsored down at the NAIA level. I could see some of them get accepted as well into D1 if they added the varsity men and women's hockey.