NCAA and the lawsuits - core of the debate seems to be around the NCAA right to exist

[blion72]

The plaintiffs (the states) all seem to focus a core in the debate that the NCAA does not have the right to enforce any rules based on anti-trust argument. The NCAA argues they are a product of contract law at the federal level and all the schools signed the contract as members. The rules also seem to be around pay for play is NOT NIL, and the schools are engaged in pay for play schemes. It does look like the Tenn and others are breaking those rules.

It seems to me that when the NCAA was punishing Penn State for things that were even outside of their normal jurisdiction, we were told by numerous lawyers (on this board as well as PSU counsel, that we could not suit the NCAA and we had no standing and their power came from the contract all the schools signed. How is that we could be punished, but now it seems the NCAA right to even exist is in question. What has changed?

 

[BobPSU92]

What has changed? Penn State didn’t want to tell the ncaa to go f*ck themselves. Everyone else does.

 

[Midnighter]

The plaintiffs (the states) all seem to focus a core in the debate that the NCAA does not have the right to enforce any rules based on anti-trust argument. The NCAA argues they are a product of contract law at the federal level and all the schools signed the contract as members. The rules also seem to be around pay for play is NOT NIL, and the schools are engaged in pay for play schemes. It does look like the Tenn and others are breaking those rules.

It seems to me that when the NCAA was punishing Penn State for things that were even outside of their normal jurisdiction, we were told by numerous lawyers (on this board as well as PSU counsel, that we could not suit the NCAA and we had no standing and their power came from the contract all the schools signed. How is that we could be punished, but now it seems the NCAA right to even exist is in question. What has changed?

Isn’t membership in the NCAA voluntary? We agreed to pay the fines. I don’t think schools have a binding contract or anything with the NCAA and could leave at any time. Their incompetence, selective enforcement, and lack foresight have made them irrelevant. As such, they’re no longer needed. I think what the B1G and SEC are doing is in an effort to agree to a set of practical rules and self-police.

 

[GrimReaper]

The plaintiffs (the states) all seem to focus a core in the debate that the NCAA does not have the right to enforce any rules based on anti-trust argument. The NCAA argues they are a product of contract law at the federal level and all the schools signed the contract as members. The rules also seem to be around pay for play is NOT NIL, and the schools are engaged in pay for play schemes. It does look like the Tenn and others are breaking those rules.

It seems to me that when the NCAA was punishing Penn State for things that were even outside of their normal jurisdiction, we were told by numerous lawyers (on this board as well as PSU counsel, that we could not suit the NCAA and we had no standing and their power came from the contract all the schools signed. How is that we could be punished, but now it seems the NCAA right to even exist is in question. What has changed?

The NCAA cannot regulate bona-fide NIL, period. If, however, NIL is nothing more than a cover for pay-for-play, then it's a violation of NCAA rules.