NCAA braces for NIT's lawsuit

Indianapolis Star ^ | 7 April 2004 | Mark Alesia

[Il Duce]

SAN ANTONIO -- The men's and women's basketball tournaments are over, but the NCAA is about to play some defense in another kind of court.

At issue is the legality of an NCAA rule requiring all teams invited to its basketball tournament to participate.

[Il Duce]

In the early 1980s, the NCAA passed a rule requiring its members to play in its tournament.

It is my opinion that this is plainly a horizontal restraint of trade. I think the NCAA will lose, and I think it will lose huge. While much of the teeth have been (rightly) taken out of anti-trust laws, this is a big-time loser.

[RetiredArmy]

Right. I would want to play in NYC for the NIT championship, not for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP somewhere else. Right. Pick me, pick me.

[dirtboy]

However, I really in this case don't think that the NCAA rules really make a difference - I doubt a single team in the NIT tournament wanted to be there instead of the NCAA tourney.

[Bikers4Bush]

How will the NCAA lose when the NIT is free to have it's tournament any other time that doesn't interfere with the NCAA tourney?

[Il Duce]

Anti-trust laws prevent horizontal restraints of trade. If the NCAA pass rules which prevent schools from participating in a competing event, it is plainly a restraint of trade.

Really, I'm not even sure what the NCAA could say to defend itself. I'd be interested in reading its motion for summary judgment if anyone could find it. I'm fascinated to think they could win on summary judgment.

[Support Free Republic]

---

Thanks for the pic sciencediet :0)	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Bikers4Bush]

"Anti-trust laws prevent horizontal restraints of trade. If the NCAA pass rules which prevent schools from participating in a competing event, it is plainly a restraint of trade."

You just lost your arguement. The NCAA does not restrict any of their members from participating in the NIT tournament, they only say that if invited to the NCAA tournament that they must play in it.

If the NIT moved the dates of their tournamnet then it would not be an issue. The fact is that nobody WANTS to play in the NIT tournament over the NCAA tourney and that bugs them.

The NIT should change it's tournament dates if it wants teams to be able to play in both.

[kevkrom]

It is my opinion that this is plainly a horizontal restraint of trade. I think the NCAA will lose, and I think it will lose huge.

Any competent court should laugh this suit out in a heartbeat. The NCAA schools are members of the organization -- they have to abide by the rules of the NCAA if they want the benefits that come with organization membership. If the schools feel that the NCAA rules are too restrictive, then they can leave the NCAA organization and no longer be bound by those rules. Of course, they'd lose their ability to compete in the NCAA tournament, but it's their choice.

[Il Duce]

The NCAA does not restrict any of their members from participating in the NIT tournament, they only say that if invited to the NCAA tournament that they must play in it.

What you are describing is illegal. You can't do that. Call it a horizontal restraint of trade or an illegal boycott, whatever, it is illegal. You just can't do it. I don't possibly know what the NCAA's defense will be. I can't even think of anything.

[Bikers4Bush]

And isn't it telling that the schools that started the NIT tournament are the one's suing the NCAA and not some aggrieved school that was FORCED to play in the NCAA tourney but who really wanted to play in the one run by the NIT?

[Il Duce]

Being a member of an organization isn't a carte blanche allowance to violate anti-trust laws. Horizontal restraints of trade are horizontal restraints of trade, under current law, period. "Voluntary" organizations don't get a free pass.

[Constitution Day]

NIT = Not In Tournament

[Bikers4Bush]

No it is not illegal, it's mandatory attendance. Not a single place in the NCAA rules does it say that teams can't go play in other tournaments it just says that if invited to the big dance that they must show.

If the NIT truly thought it was worth a crap it would stop involving itself in scheduling conflicts with the NCAA and try to make it one their own instead of riding on the NCAA's coat tails.

[Il Duce]

It doesn't matter. It is the competing organization suing. The NIT is a competitor to the NCAA tournament, and the actions of the NCAA are a restraint of trade. The law says that horizontal restraints of trade are illegal per se. Game over.

[laredo44]

Kessler said their motivation is not money.

What is it with lawyers and their seeming ability to ... just lie?

[aposiopetic]

The NCAA has a $6.2 million, 11-year contract with CBS for television rights.

I can't believe the Indy Star editors let this through -- unless there was some reason behind it.

It is in reality a $6 billion contract.

[Bikers4Bush]

Don't kid yourself, they aren't even remotely considered competiton to the real tournament.

Are you not capable of understanding that they aren't restricting NCAA teams from playing in the NIT or are you just an NIT lover?

Last time I checked lot's of NCAA teams played in the NIT, the one's that didn't get invited to the big dance.

The judge will laugh at the NIT and tell them to stop scheduling their tournament around the same dates as the NCAA tourney and that will be that.

[doug9732]

The NIT has a strong case.
As usual the arrogant morons running the NCAA do not use their brains.

[Guillermo]

The NIT, crowning the 65th (now 66th) place teams for decades...

[Dr. Frank fan]

It's hard to envision why the organization "NCAA" oughtn't be allowed to require schools to participate in the Tournament (if invited) as a condition of their membership.

Baseball analogy. Imagine that the Florida Marlins reach the World Series and are all set to play the New York Yankees. But the Yankees are unhappy that the Marlins, rather than (say) the Chicago Cubs, got to the World Series, because the Marlins are less popular and well-known thus this means less viewership and smaller ratings for the World Series - and a smaller paycheck for the Yankees. Saying that NCAA schools should have the option to "choose" the NIT instead is a little like saying that the Yankees ought to be able to just "choose" to play a seven-game, televised series against the Cubs instead, leaving the Marlins high and dry.

This is a *sports league*. The league exists to set up rules of competition which enhance the popularity and strength of the sport for all involved. The tournament of 64 has attained immense popularity in no small part due to the fact that it is THE tournament while the NIT is second-bananas. Setting it up that way indeed required behaving in a "monopolistic" manner, I guess. But diluting the talent and competition of the final 64 is good for who, exactly? So instead of one big-time tournament we get two rival tournaments of equal weight, with no clear champion?

Protecting that event is the reason the NCAA struck a deal with the city of Indianapolis to provide annual backup locations for the Final Four in exchange for making Indy the site of major events, including the men's Final Four, an average of once every five years.

Side issue here: Perhaps I'm dense, but what on earth does this mean?

What I understand: I can see there's an agreement. It's between the NCAA and the city of Indianpolis. For NCAA's end, they allow Indianapolis to host the Final Four 20% of the time.

In return, Indianapolis does.... what, exactly? "provides annual backup locations for the Final Four"? How does Indianapolis go about doing that? And why are "backup locations" needed, in case the primary locations are unable to perform their duties? (I've never heard the announcement "due to rioting/floods/locusts in its host city, the West Regional will need to be moved to its Backup Location...") And why did NCAA strike this deal with Indianapolis in particular, and not some other city? Why was Indianapolis considered the key city to bargain with when you needed someone to Provide Backup Locations? And how did this all "protect the event"? How did they get from (A) "we need to protect the final-4 event" to (B) "therefore, go talk to Indianapolis, the world's best-known Provider of Backup Cities, and strike a deal with them: if they provide backup cities, we'll let them host 1/5 of the time..." ??? Just, strange. Messy writing, perhaps. I honestly can't figure out what's being conveyed.