Hot Stove: UNC Basketball

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 45K
  • UNC Sports 
Calheel said:
I would not use "good law" to describe any case decided before Alston in 2021. That is what opened the doors wide open. It is not at all clear to me why the 4 year restraint on earnings is a reasonable limitation. The coaches aren't so constrained. Minor league players aren't so constrained. There is no requirement to leave a school after four years (grad school can basically go forever). I am not making a prediction here. I don't know what the courts/Congress/collective bargaining will ultimately produce. That said, I do think the 4-year eligibility rule is squarely in the target zone.
Click to expand...
Well, let's take this further. Which of the following rules can the NCAA enforce without running afoul of antitrust law:

1. Players have to be students
2. Players have to be in good academic standing
3. Placement of women's and men's team in different leagues with different eligibility rules
4. The basket has to be set at 10 feet, even though lowering the basket height would introduce more competition into the labor market
5. No more than three coaches on the bench (note: the NBA has this rule even though coaches are not covered by the CBA)
6. No changing teams mid season.

The point of Regents is that a sports league has to be permitted to be a sports league. Alston didn't overturn that. And sports leagues have rules by necessity. Like roster limits and eligibility rules. Like, all sports leagues I've ever heard of. That's a pretty good sign that those rules are reasonable -- even if they are adopted pursuant to a CBA, it suggests that those types of considerations are inherent to the operation of a sports league. Antitrust law does not decimate the concept of sports leagues.

And let's take it further to HS sports. Are HS leagues permitted to have rules like, "the team members have to be students at the high school" and "boys are not allowed to play football until after puberty" (I know that's not the way the rule is ever phrased, but I don't know exactly how the idea is implemented and this seems good enough for a thought experiment). What about HS leagues obeying district lines? Can Chapel Hill High recruit a guy who lives in Hillside's district so that he can be on the team without moving?

It's really easy to take Alston too far and start blowing up every restriction because they touch on price. It's a rule of reason after all.
 
superrific said:
Well, let's take this further. Which of the following rules can the NCAA enforce without running afoul of antitrust law:

1. Players have to be students
2. Players have to be in good academic standing
3. Placement of women's and men's team in different leagues with different eligibility rules
4. The basket has to be set at 10 feet, even though lowering the basket height would introduce more competition into the labor market
5. No more than three coaches on the bench (note: the NBA has this rule even though coaches are not covered by the CBA)
6. No changing teams mid season.

The point of Regents is that a sports league has to be permitted to be a sports league. Alston didn't overturn that. And sports leagues have rules by necessity. Like roster limits and eligibility rules. Like, all sports leagues I've ever heard of. That's a pretty good sign that those rules are reasonable -- even if they are adopted pursuant to a CBA, it suggests that those types of considerations are inherent to the operation of a sports league. Antitrust law does not decimate the concept of sports leagues.

And let's take it further to HS sports. Are HS leagues permitted to have rules like, "the team members have to be students at the high school" and "boys are not allowed to play football until after puberty" (I know that's not the way the rule is ever phrased, but I don't know exactly how the idea is implemented and this seems good enough for a thought experiment). What about HS leagues obeying district lines? Can Chapel Hill High recruit a guy who lives in Hillside's district so that he can be on the team without moving?

It's really easy to take Alston too far and start blowing up every restriction because they touch on price. It's a rule of reason after all.
Click to expand...
I think any rule that sets a cap on players’ ability to earn money is squarely in the crosshairs.
 


Echos what Rob was saying since the start of the season, and what others have been saying is the stigma surrounding UNC currently - they don't put their players in a position to succeed, or make it easier for them to succeed.
 
stankeylegjones said:


Echos what Rob was saying since the start of the season, and what others have been saying is the stigma surrounding UNC currently - they don't put their players in a position to succeed, or make it easier for them to succeed.
Click to expand...

I don't follow what Powell is saying. I don't see how he didn't get to showcase his "two way" playing ability. We certainly needed additional scorers and better defenders this past year.

If anyone can argue that his role diminished, it's Ian Jackson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top