forums

The Bank (7/19)

View as article
Advertisement
bobbydigius said:
The only thing I can say about this weak, limp **** post, is suck my dvck from the back Karen. You still don’t get the point and I’ve given up on being hopeful that you understood.
Click to expand...

LOL, holy triggered. That's a lot of ****s and ducks, amigo! You got THAT hysterical from THAT innocuous post? Relax. And chill w the personal attacks, eh?

Maybe take a minute and think about why EVERY poster's response was the same. And yeah, everyone understands your highly transparent point. It's funny you don't get that, and don't get why we think it was ill-timed. Persecution complex much?

Take a breathe, mane. It's all gonna be ok.


duck fail GIF
 
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
Not true.
Click to expand...

You're right about one thing. The opinion doesn't specifically address NIL, but it most definitely found the NCAA in violation of federal anti-trust statutes. Their decision had a narrow focus on related to compensation for "educational related benefits". This was because NCAA challenged the District Court decision to strike down the educational-related benefits restrictions, the student athletes did not.

"Before us, the student-athletes do not challenge the district court’s judgment. But the NCAA does." see page 2 of attached opinion​

The NCAA wanted complete immunity from antitrust.

"In essence, it (meaning the NCAA) seeks immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws and argues, in any event, that the district court should have approved all of its existing restraints." see page 2 of attached opinion​
​
​
Further the concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh opens up restrictions over NIL and other forms of compensation for future litigation. Beginning page 2' Kavanaugh states the following:

"I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws. Three points warrant emphasis.
  1. First, the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules. As the Court says, “the student-athletes do not renew their across-the-board challenge to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions. Accordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place or the district court’s judgment upholding them. Our review is confined to those restrictions now enjoined.”
  2. Second, although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws. ...
  3. Third, there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. Under the rule of reason, the NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, however, the NCAA may lack such a justification. ..."

Justice Kavanaugh was savage in his criticism of the NCAA. Other choice quotes:
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 1 very first para, "The NCAA has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive. And with surprising success, the NCAA has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny. Today, however, the Court holds that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws."
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 3 last para, "Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 4 second para, "the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. "
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 4 last para, "If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some difficult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly ensue. "
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 5, last sentence, "The NCAA is not above the law."

Attached is a link to the Supreme Court's opinion from their own website

 
Advertisement
bobbydigius said:
I never said anything of the sorts. What I did say is that DMoney, who started and owns the best Canes site in the biz has a record of being a homer when hyping our own preseason. It’s well documented. TVD is an excellent prospect but just take that report with a giant shaker of salt. Remember when Rosier had complete command of the offense and was looking sharp in 2018?
Click to expand...
What's wrong about that Rosier analysis?

Maybe he did. Maybe so did every opposing defense...
 
Advertisement
NorthEastCane said:
You're right about one thing. The opinion doesn't specifically address NIL, but it most definitely found the NCAA in violation of federal anti-trust statutes. Their decision had a narrow focus on related to compensation for "educational related benefits". This was because NCAA challenged the District Court decision to strike down the educational-related benefits restrictions, the student athletes did not.

"Before us, the student-athletes do not challenge the district court’s judgment. But the NCAA does." see page 2 of attached opinion​

The NCAA wanted complete immunity from antitrust.

"In essence, it (meaning the NCAA) seeks immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws and argues, in any event, that the district court should have approved all of its existing restraints." see page 2 of attached opinion​
​
​
Further the concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh opens up restrictions over NIL and other forms of compensation for future litigation. Beginning page 2' Kavanaugh states the following:

"I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws. Three points warrant emphasis.
  1. First, the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules. As the Court says, “the student-athletes do not renew their across-the-board challenge to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions. Accordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place or the district court’s judgment upholding them. Our review is confined to those restrictions now enjoined.”
  2. Second, although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws. ...
  3. Third, there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. Under the rule of reason, the NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, however, the NCAA may lack such a justification. ..."

Justice Kavanaugh was savage in his criticism of the NCAA. Other choice quotes:
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 1 very first para, "The NCAA has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive. And with surprising success, the NCAA has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny. Today, however, the Court holds that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws."
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 3 last para, "Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 4 second para, "the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. "
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 4 last para, "If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some difficult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly ensue. "
  • Kavanaugh: Concurring opinion Page 5, last sentence, "The NCAA is not above the law."

Attached is a link to the Supreme Court's opinion from their own website

Click to expand...


I've read the opinion, which is why I made the comment that I made. And Kavanaugh's ONE-PERSON concurrence is dicta. IT MEANS NOTHING. The **** court was UNANIMOUS, 9-0, and he was the ONLY attention-seeker who chose to go beyond the bounds of the case to make a ridiculous first impression. It further proves what a lightweight Kavanaugh is, that he can't even read the room. He's young, he'll have plenty of chances in the future to make his "bitter beer face" when he doesn't like a particular litigant.

The case was about university-provided compensation (academic achievement awards). That is all. All of Kavanaugh's fake "savagery" was just political psycho-drama that meant nothing. He also likes to drink beer. Who cares? NOBODY JOINED HIM in his concurrence. It's just a temper tantrum.

So you can take 2/3 of your lengthy response and toss it in the garbage. Means nothing.

As for what the Alston opinion says (the real opinion that all 9 justices agreed upon), it is a bit trickier than saying there is some brightline "violation of antitrust laws". If you read the entirety of the case, rather than cutting-and-pasting and highlighting in bold only the parts that you want to agree with, the actual standard is to apply the "rule of reason" analysis to determine if there has been a violation of the Sherman Act. In other words, the NCAA actually CAN apply and enforce restrictions on compensation. HOWEVER, in order to pass muster under Sherman, those NCAA restraints must not be "undue", which is where the "rule of reason" analysis enters in.

Without massive cutting-and-pasting, and without unnecessary bolding of certain words, the NCAA's restrictions did, in fact, fail the "rule of reason" analysis, so the restrictions on academic achievement awards were found to be undue, and as such, a violation of Sherman antitrust principles. Not a literal violation of some particular and specific sub-section, but a spirit-of-the-law violation. The NCAA went too far, to a point where they were unable to prevail on the claim that the restrictions were warranted.

The fact remains, I am correct. The Alston case has nothing to do with NIL, though people mistakenly continue to claim that it was all about NIL. It was not.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
CT Cane 44 said:
Rosier never looked like TVD last year and he had the best season of a QB since Dorsey. Let that sink in with respect to the gap between the two. Rosier was bailed out so much that first year. I was actually shocked how horrible his senior year was
Click to expand...

I am a huge fan of Rosier. His last seconds td pass against the Noles will forever etch him onto my mountain of greats.

But I'll admit I thought he was spectacular against ND, only to realize (after watching the game again recently) that he was subpar that game but bailed out by the rest of the team.

Still, Hail Rosier!
 
TheOriginalCane said:
That's on random audits.

But never underestimate the power of a well-written whistleblower complaint...
Click to expand...
Yah, well those SEC parents would have a lot to explain living beyond their o
TheOriginalCane said:
That's on random audits.

But never underestimate the power of a well-written whistleblower complaint...
Click to expand...
Should UGA and Bama be worried?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I've read the opinion, which is why I made the comment that I made. And Kavanaugh's ONE-PERSON concurrence is dicta. IT MEANS NOTHING. The **** court was UNANIMOUS, 9-0, and he was the ONLY attention-seeker who chose to go beyond the bounds of the case to make a ridiculous first impression. It further proves what a lightweight Kavanaugh is, that he can't even read the room. He's young, he'll have plenty of chances in the future to make his "bitter beer face" when he doesn't like a particular litigant.

The case was about university-provided compensation (academic achievement awards). That is all. All of Kavanaugh's fake "savagery" was just political psycho-drama that meant nothing. He also likes to drink beer. Who cares? NOBODY JOINED HIM in his concurrence. It's just a temper tantrum.

So you can take 2/3 of your lengthy response and toss it in the garbage. Means nothing.

As for what the Alston opinion says (the real opinion that all 9 justices agreed upon), it is a bit trickier than saying there is some brightline "violation of antitrust laws". If you read the entirety of the case, rather than cutting-and-pasting and highlighting in bold only the parts that you want to agree with, the actual standard is to apply the "rule of reason" analysis to determine if there has been a violation of the Sherman Act. In other words, the NCAA actually CAN apply and enforce restrictions on compensation. HOWEVER, in order to pass muster under Sherman, those NCAA restraints must not be "undue", which is where the "rule of reason" analysis enters in.

Without massive cutting-and-pasting, and without unnecessary bolding of certain words, the NCAA's restrictions did, in fact, fail the "rule of reason" analysis, so the restrictions on academic achievement awards were found to be undue, and as such, a violation of Sherman antitrust principles. Not a literal violation of some particular and specific sub-section, but a spirit-of-the-law violation. The NCAA went too far, to a point where they were unable to prevail on the claim that the restrictions were warranted.

The fact remains, I am correct. The Alston case has nothing to do with NIL, though people mistakenly continue to claim that it was all about NIL. It was not.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that, sometime in the future, you're going to have to explain what dicta is and why it doesn't mean ****.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top