NCAA defends tourney bid rules (NIT anti-trust lawsuit against NCAA)

Indianapolis Star ^ | 16 April 2004 | Alesia, Mark

[Il Duce]

NEW YORK -- Big-money entrepreneurs, not the National Invitation Tournament, could damage postseason college basketball if the NCAA tournament is ruled an illegal monopoly, an NCAA attorney argued Thursday in U.S. District Court.

The NIT is suing the NCAA, saying it violates antitrust laws by requiring teams to participate in the NCAA tournament if they are invited.

[Il Duce]

Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I think the NCAA is going down on this one.

[You Dirty Rats]

You might be right. Antitrust law however is very complex and not well-defined, so anything is possible.

I don't really think there is much chance of another tournament cropping up in basketball. I would LOVE to see the NCAA lose this case and then someone (Fox?) make the major football teams a Godfather offer to enter a real playoff instead of the ridiculous bowl games.

[Mr. Bird]

mentioned affidavits from Texas Tech coach Bob Knight

I have no doubt Bobby agreed; Myles Brand is the head of the NCAA. Myles Brand fired Bobby from IU. I think Knight would walk through hell in a gasoline suit just to p*** Brand off.

What I don't understand about this issue: what would be the ramifications if the NCAA worded its rules differently? What if they just said member invitees declining participation would be disqualified for participation in the next year's (or the next 5 year's) tourney? It would have the same effect.