Judge ruled correctly. It was always a long shot but it was a move. Judge now has a good understanding of what this case is about.
Yeah. I think there has been alot of planning on our part. Beginning after the Pruitt case based on the NCAA behavior toward us. I think the NCAA has been after us because they could not ban us because of Pruitt. The games they played with baseball shortstop transfer and the punishment doled out on Tony V. added evidence to our leadership. We coordinated (internally/externally) and waited. We made sure we followed the NIL rules/guidance provided by the NCAA. Changing the rules/guidance/definitions and retroactively applying them contrary to previous provided rules/guidance/definitions without membership review and approval under the guise of an "emergency" authorization to do so was ill-planned. The leak to the "press" of the investigation served as the trigger. If NCAA did it, it was stupid. If a conference or team leaked it, it was designed to activate things before a NOA was released. The letters/statements from internal/external sources, put the NCAA on notice. The Attorneys General's case served to alter the NCAA timeline at a minimum relative to a NOA. The bosses of the 2 most powerful conference members put the NCAA on notice. The judge in the case put the NCAA on notice. The conferences/teams have been asking the NCAA to step up and act like a responsible entity. The SCOTUS told the NCAA not to break the law. Congress told the NCAA to fix their shit on their own. Simply put more succinctly by others ... "[uck fay] around, find out." Attacking Tennessee was not the solution to "fixing it".
You and the judge's opinion assume that a given recruit's value is easily predictable or measureable and fixed. A lot of these guy's value is going to peak with the potential they show before they ever step on a practice field as a college player and that peak value amplified by negotiating with several schools. The NCAA's guidelines expressly forbid the prospective students from being able to maximize their value. Whether deserving of the money or not, this is a one-time shot for a lot of these players who will wind up not panning out for one reason or another, and it's not the court's business to protect the schools or collectives from making poorer business deals which of course is not the issue at hand but is the effective result. If you can explain how these recruits are to recover these losses, I'd love to see it.
Yep, they will only be a promising unknown recruit once. Their youth, rawness and right of discovery are inextricably part of the valuation. And that is the part of the value that is being taken away. Not every 5 star gets drafted into the nfl.
There are services that have a NIL valuation for players. I (when) this gets over-turned, a player can sue the NCAA for the amount they didn't get by waiting. I didn't expect us to get the TRO. I guess that's why I am shrugging my shoudlers at it.
I just hope other judges have the same energy as this one and the ncaa doesn't get allowed to low ball.
True, but as many have noted, NIL is still the wild west. I'd have a hard time putting much stock in valuation services with such a small sample size so far.
Fair, but there is at least a number to argue from. I've never read how the number was arrived at, but there is a generally accepted ballpark amount.
There's also the fact that it sets up a situation where some poor kid or his family has to navigate finding a lawyer to sue the NCAA who has millions upon millions of dollars and a team of lawyers. I get the courts turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, but practically speaking, I wouldn't want to be arguing that's fair.
I don't think I expressed an opinion. This was the judge's ruling on the AG's argument, not mine. And I don't think I can explain, to your satisfaction, the "why", especially if I am not trained as an attorney and was not privy to the strategy, case law, documents or arguments. Based on the legal definition: "Irreparable harm is a legal concept whch argues that the type of harm threatened cannot be corrected through monetary compensation or conditions cannot be put back the way they were." I provided what I believe to be the basis of law as to the "why" the judge rejected the Attorneys General's request for a TRO. The AG failed to meet the required hurdle. Keep in mind this was a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), not the actual case for the Injunction. Your TRO beef is with the legal hurdle, case law or perhaps the performance of the AG arguing the TRO case? Re: TRO - "Cannot be corrected through monetary compensation or conditions cannot be put back the way they were."- perhaps they can? If a student signed with a school not knowing what their NIL potential earning because of NCAA NIL "rules", the student-athletes that have been harmed by the NCAA NIL restriction can bring suit. If they prove what you articulate, the actions of the NCAA will be required to correct through monetary compensation (delta of what the student-athlete would have made, damages) and the "rules" will be deemed in violation of anti-trust and removed. This and anti-trust is what I expect are the bigger things that others have tried to get NCAA to understand.
Sports lawyers are qued up. I doubt any "poor kid or their family" will have any problems navigating.
It would seem so. I think the NCAA has boxed themselves in and were/are too arrogant and short-sighted to listen to their members, Big 2 conference heads and others. You would think they would have at least really listened to SCOTUS and Congress. The judge ruling on the TRO basically told them they were [uck fay]ed without telling them they were [uck fay]ed. This is all my opinion.
Explain how a star high school athlete who never lives up to his hype can possibly recover the NIL value he has prior to signing in any accurate way without bias against his value based on his resulting performance. That's the thing here. We get lost in the weeds with down to the NCAA sentiment that we fail to look at the practical side of this. It was a bad ruling because some of these players are never going to see the full financial value that their NIL was worth prior to signing because lawyers will be involved and their value will be determined through a negotiation post facto rather than allowed to reach its maximum in a free market environment. A lot of people are looking at this through the lens of Tennessee is probably going to win this anyway, so the ruling doesn't matter. That's ignoring who is actually damaged the most by these rules.
The ruling was on the TRO only, not the actual case. The ruling was based on the AG not meeting the hurdle for a TRO. The judge is going to rule on what each side argued and the law relative to the TRO and only the TRO. Now if the NCAA wins the actual case, then I might question the AG ability, the judge's bias or the laws being argued. A kid is gonna get the NIL prior to him not performing. Would he get less because he chose the school first? I don't think the issue is lost value due to poor performance after-the fact. It is a kid has the right to use amount of NIL offered as an item in his/her selection criteria. If a kid can prove he lost NIL value because the NCAA rules were in effect then he can sue. This is why the Sports attorneys have been waiting for this to happen. I suspect they think the opportunities are endless.
The ruling ignores the fact that some athletes are never going to recover the lost value of their NIL after they bust. It's not complicated. Allowing NCAA enforcement to continue = less competition = lower NIL value for the athlete and increased burden and legal costs for proving their worth in a courtroom Restraining the NCAA = freer market with competition between schools/collectives for athletes = higher effective NIL value = more money. NIL value is based on a lot of factors admittedly for these athletes, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking anything other than perceived performance on the field is the biggest factor, and in the case of entering freshmen, that perceived performance is hypothetical. For a lot of these players, their NIL value will never be higher than it is before they sign with a school. This board could make a lengthy list of highly recruited players that never lived up to the hype. The court has ignored this in its ruling against the restraining order and is allowing players value to be damaged. It's easy enough to say that they'll get theirs from the NCAA, but I don't see the merit with that position because there's no accounting for the effects a free market can have on the value of something with limited availability. Valuation estimates cannot take into account a blue blood program missing a recruit and its collective swooping in to overpay a replacement or that situation leading to a bidding war between two collectives. NCAA guidelines prevent this. Imagine trying to gather a preponderance of evidence to support that in court, but this is a plausible scenario. Now try to imagine doing this with a guy who winds up a bust.
I understand what you are saying regarding "optimum value", but disagree with your opinion in the first paragraph, other than it is not complicated. The ruling was based on the AG argument relative to the law. Who evidently did not prove that any optimum value was lost forever and could not ever be fully recovered (including damages). Simply put, the AG did not prove that a TRO was needed to avoid irreparable harm. I have to believe that any reputable, knowledgeable attorney have thought about the whole concept of "optimum recruit value" before signing. As well as how to argue that the actual performance (or lack thereof) after-the-fact has no bearing on that optimum value. I also believe that they will have a defendable position determining that optimum value. If I am not mistaken there is some time limit (court days) between the TRO and the motion for injunction relative to proving irreparable harm. I don't know what that is, but I think there is only about a week (maybe 10 days) between this TRO and the injunction hearing (Feb 13?).
If you understand that there is loss, then you should be able to get to it being a bad ruling. No offense intended, but a courtroom decision simply being reached doesn't make it the correct decision. That's what I mostly get from all you've posted.
Perhaps I was not concise enough. I think I understand your concept of there being an "optimum value". I think there is. I don't agree with the concept that this hypothetical "optimum value" is forever lost and can never be identified or fully recovered. I think it can be identified and fully recovered. To your standards? Probably not. To a plaintiffs standards? I don't know. I think so. Would I like to have seen the AG win? Sure. Am I bummed that the AG lost? Yes. Do I believe that irreparable harm was caused by losing? No. Do I believe the ruling in this specific case was correct? Yes. Do I believe the ruling in this specific case is bad? No. I do not think this TRO case ruling will have a negative bearing on the pending injunction. And perhaps that is why I don't think it was incorrect or bad? It is unfortunate that "That's what I mostly get from all you've posted." seemed to creep outside of this specific TRO case. Perhaps I misunderstood. That is all I got, based on what I think I know for this specific TRO case.
