NIT takes NCAA to court over season finale
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:43 am
NIT takes NCAA to court over season finale
By Mark Alesia, The Indianapolis Star
The NCAA will be in court today for the start of an antitrust trial that strikes at the heart of one of the nation's most popular sports events, the Division I men's basketball tournament. Worst-case scenario for the NCAA: The case could deal a major blow to the organization.
In U.S. District Court in New York, the National Invitation Tournament is challenging the NCAA's requirement that teams attend its championships if invited. The NIT, a once-prominent postseason basketball tournament now greatly overshadowed by the concurrent NCAA event, contends teams should have a choice. That could open the postseason to entrepreneurs or prompt the top schools to organize themselves, as in football.
Even a less extreme outcome could devalue the NCAA's cash cow, a tournament that accounts for at least 90% of its revenue. Should the NCAA be found to have intentionally harmed the NIT through an illegal monopoly, there's also the possibility of a large financial judgment, which is tripled in antitrust cases.
The trial is expected to last a month. Texas Tech coach Bob Knight will testify for the NIT by video. Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski is on the NCAA's witness list.
"The potential here is significant," said Gary Roberts, a sports law expert from Tulane University. "The NCAA is at some risk."
The NCAA says member schools were within their legal rights to create the rule at issue, and that it wasn't intended to harm the NIT. Further, it says consumers benefit from a single national championship and that the statute of limitations has run out anyway. The rule was formed in 1982.
"The NCAA has to feel pretty confident legally," said Paul Haagen, a sports law expert from Duke. "If the NIT is right, they're just incredibly vulnerable."
Roberts said: "It appears to the average person as a silly issue because nobody wants to play in the NIT. But that wasn't always the case. The NIT's argument is that this is the way it is because of that rule."
The NIT — started in 1938, which is a year earlier than the NCAA tournament — is run by the Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, comprising five New York City schools: St. John's, Fordham, Manhattan, Wagner and New York University.
Until the expansion of the NCAA tournament field in the 1970s, the NIT regularly had attractive teams available to it.
In 1970, Marquette coach Al McGuire, upset with his team's seed in the NCAA tournament, pulled out and went to the NIT. The NIT's complaint alleges McGuire's decision prompted the start of illegal, anti-competitive behavior by the NCAA, including the "commitment to participate" rule.
NCAA vice president David Berst said the rule is needed because smaller NCAA sports such as crew and lacrosse might have teams opt to compete somewhere other than the NCAA championship.
"There are other sports that don't have what we've created here (with basketball)," Berst said.
According to the NIT's complaint, the NCAA tournament's gradual increase from 25 teams in 1974 to 64 teams in 1985 almost caused the NIT to go out of business. Only the advent of the popular Preseason NIT saved the postseason NIT.
In 1999, the NCAA signed its current $6.2 billion, 11-year contract with CBS for TV and marketing rights to the tournament.
NIT attorney Jeffrey Kessler,who declined comment for this story, has represented the players associations of all the major sports and won at least three cases against the NFL. That includes McNeil v. NFL, the 1991 case that opened the door to the league's current free-agency system.
There are other factors that might make the NCAA uneasy. Kessler will be representing the New York-based NIT to a New York jury grappling with issues that are complicated for experts.
"Antitrust is always difficult, and it's even more difficult when it's applied to sports," said Rick Karcher, director of the Center for Law and Sports at Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville. "It's totally different than if you're talking about the sale of widgets. Ford would love not to have to compete with GM. The New York Yankees still need the Pittsburgh Pirates.
"I think the NCAA can enact a less restrictive rule and still accomplish what it wants."
That could mean teams being allowed in both events. That was raised by the judge in the case, Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, during a hearing last year.
At that hearing Kessler said the NIT would be "happy" to have its tournament after the NCAA's. Another NCAA rule says teams can't play any games after the title game of the NCAA tournament.
NCAA general counsel Elsa Cole said she's confident about the association's legal position.
"The ultimate (adverse) outcome, though remote, would be so devastating there's no way not to take something like this seriously," Cole said. "We believe we have the better legal arguments."
==========
NCAA doesn't always prevail
The NCAA has a mixed record in antitrust cases:
1983: The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women accused the NCAA of antitrust violations shortly after the NCAA began sponsoring women's sports. The AIAW contended the NCAA wanted monopoly control over all college sports. A federal district court ruled for the NCAA.
Effect: The AIAW merged with the NCAA.
1984: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the NCAA could not restrict teams' appearances on TV.
Effect: Much more college football on TV, with schools and leagues able to make their own deals.
1999: The NCAA paid a $54 million settlement to so-called restricted earnings assistant basketball coaches, whose pay was limited by NCAA rules.
Effect: Increased salaries, part of college sports' "arms race." Whenever someone asks how $2 million salaries for football coaches fit into higher education, the answer involves an explanation that capping them is illegal.
2004: A federal appeals court ruled it was legal for the NCAA to limit schools' participation in basketball tournaments such as the Maui Invitational and Great Alaska Shootout. Such "exempt" events allow schools to play multiple games that only count as one toward the NCAA limit. Tournament organizers brought the suit.
Effect: The NCAA wanted to defend its right to limit teams' seasons, but there's broad support for getting rid of restrictions on exempt events. Legislation to that effect is being tabled pending the outcome of the NIT's antitrust lawsuit.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... suit_x.htm
By Mark Alesia, The Indianapolis Star
The NCAA will be in court today for the start of an antitrust trial that strikes at the heart of one of the nation's most popular sports events, the Division I men's basketball tournament. Worst-case scenario for the NCAA: The case could deal a major blow to the organization.
In U.S. District Court in New York, the National Invitation Tournament is challenging the NCAA's requirement that teams attend its championships if invited. The NIT, a once-prominent postseason basketball tournament now greatly overshadowed by the concurrent NCAA event, contends teams should have a choice. That could open the postseason to entrepreneurs or prompt the top schools to organize themselves, as in football.
Even a less extreme outcome could devalue the NCAA's cash cow, a tournament that accounts for at least 90% of its revenue. Should the NCAA be found to have intentionally harmed the NIT through an illegal monopoly, there's also the possibility of a large financial judgment, which is tripled in antitrust cases.
The trial is expected to last a month. Texas Tech coach Bob Knight will testify for the NIT by video. Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski is on the NCAA's witness list.
"The potential here is significant," said Gary Roberts, a sports law expert from Tulane University. "The NCAA is at some risk."
The NCAA says member schools were within their legal rights to create the rule at issue, and that it wasn't intended to harm the NIT. Further, it says consumers benefit from a single national championship and that the statute of limitations has run out anyway. The rule was formed in 1982.
"The NCAA has to feel pretty confident legally," said Paul Haagen, a sports law expert from Duke. "If the NIT is right, they're just incredibly vulnerable."
Roberts said: "It appears to the average person as a silly issue because nobody wants to play in the NIT. But that wasn't always the case. The NIT's argument is that this is the way it is because of that rule."
The NIT — started in 1938, which is a year earlier than the NCAA tournament — is run by the Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, comprising five New York City schools: St. John's, Fordham, Manhattan, Wagner and New York University.
Until the expansion of the NCAA tournament field in the 1970s, the NIT regularly had attractive teams available to it.
In 1970, Marquette coach Al McGuire, upset with his team's seed in the NCAA tournament, pulled out and went to the NIT. The NIT's complaint alleges McGuire's decision prompted the start of illegal, anti-competitive behavior by the NCAA, including the "commitment to participate" rule.
NCAA vice president David Berst said the rule is needed because smaller NCAA sports such as crew and lacrosse might have teams opt to compete somewhere other than the NCAA championship.
"There are other sports that don't have what we've created here (with basketball)," Berst said.
According to the NIT's complaint, the NCAA tournament's gradual increase from 25 teams in 1974 to 64 teams in 1985 almost caused the NIT to go out of business. Only the advent of the popular Preseason NIT saved the postseason NIT.
In 1999, the NCAA signed its current $6.2 billion, 11-year contract with CBS for TV and marketing rights to the tournament.
NIT attorney Jeffrey Kessler,who declined comment for this story, has represented the players associations of all the major sports and won at least three cases against the NFL. That includes McNeil v. NFL, the 1991 case that opened the door to the league's current free-agency system.
There are other factors that might make the NCAA uneasy. Kessler will be representing the New York-based NIT to a New York jury grappling with issues that are complicated for experts.
"Antitrust is always difficult, and it's even more difficult when it's applied to sports," said Rick Karcher, director of the Center for Law and Sports at Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville. "It's totally different than if you're talking about the sale of widgets. Ford would love not to have to compete with GM. The New York Yankees still need the Pittsburgh Pirates.
"I think the NCAA can enact a less restrictive rule and still accomplish what it wants."
That could mean teams being allowed in both events. That was raised by the judge in the case, Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, during a hearing last year.
At that hearing Kessler said the NIT would be "happy" to have its tournament after the NCAA's. Another NCAA rule says teams can't play any games after the title game of the NCAA tournament.
NCAA general counsel Elsa Cole said she's confident about the association's legal position.
"The ultimate (adverse) outcome, though remote, would be so devastating there's no way not to take something like this seriously," Cole said. "We believe we have the better legal arguments."
==========
NCAA doesn't always prevail
The NCAA has a mixed record in antitrust cases:
1983: The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women accused the NCAA of antitrust violations shortly after the NCAA began sponsoring women's sports. The AIAW contended the NCAA wanted monopoly control over all college sports. A federal district court ruled for the NCAA.
Effect: The AIAW merged with the NCAA.
1984: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the NCAA could not restrict teams' appearances on TV.
Effect: Much more college football on TV, with schools and leagues able to make their own deals.
1999: The NCAA paid a $54 million settlement to so-called restricted earnings assistant basketball coaches, whose pay was limited by NCAA rules.
Effect: Increased salaries, part of college sports' "arms race." Whenever someone asks how $2 million salaries for football coaches fit into higher education, the answer involves an explanation that capping them is illegal.
2004: A federal appeals court ruled it was legal for the NCAA to limit schools' participation in basketball tournaments such as the Maui Invitational and Great Alaska Shootout. Such "exempt" events allow schools to play multiple games that only count as one toward the NCAA limit. Tournament organizers brought the suit.
Effect: The NCAA wanted to defend its right to limit teams' seasons, but there's broad support for getting rid of restrictions on exempt events. Legislation to that effect is being tabled pending the outcome of the NIT's antitrust lawsuit.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... suit_x.htm
