methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/columns/edmatisik/060215.htm
Walk-Ons Sue NCAA
As the primary membership organization for intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA has enacted a number of rules that, it claims, helps to increase the general competitiveness of its member institutions in all sports. One major area addressed by these rules is the maximum number of scholarships that a school may award in a particular sport. The NCAA, and many commentators and NCAA-member institutions, believe that the cap on scholarships benefits the general quality of play throughout the United States by forcing the talent pool to be “spread around” a greater number of institutions. That is, the cap limits the larger universities, and those with greater resources, from stockpiling talent in a particular sport, and encourages student-athletes to consider playing for those programs that may be less prestigious or have fewer resources, but have the same number of scholarship slots available as do the more prestigious programs.
The number of scholarships that a school may award varies by sports, by Division within the NCAA (i.e., Division I or Division II; athletic scholarships are not awarded by Division III institutions), and gender of the student-athletes that play on a team. The maximum number of scholarships that may awarded by an NCAA Division I college or university at any given time, by sport and gender, is given below. (Please note that partial scholarship are possible because the NCAA permits an institution to grant a particular student-athlete less than 100% aid for participating in a sport; e.g., 10 full scholarships could be divided among 20 student-athletes by giving each student-athlete a half scholarship.)
Sport # of Scholarships for Men # of Scholarships for Women
Basketball 13 15
Baseball (men) 11.7
Softball (women) 12
Field Hockey * 12
Football 85 *
Golf 4.5 6
Gymnastics 6.3 12
Ice Hockey 18 18
Lacrosse 12.6 12
Rowing 0 20
Soccer 9.9 12
Swimming and Diving 9.9 8.1
Tennis 4.5 8
Track and Field 12.6 18
Volleyball 4.5 12
Water Polo 4.5 8
Wrestling 9.9 *
*Indicates that competition is offered only for one gender or that the sport is co-ed.
Note: The above figures indicate the maximum number of scholarships that a college or
university may award. An institution may award fewer scholarships, or none at all, based
on an institution’s budget, focus on a particular sport, or compliance with gender equity
laws such as Title IX.
A group of walk-on football players at NCAA Division I-A schools in the State of Washington have filed suit against the NCAA challenging these limitations. A “walk-on” is a student-athlete who has not necessarily been recruited by a school and who obtained a spot on a team’s roster by trying out for the team. Walk-ons, in general, do not receive scholarships, although sometimes an institution may elect to provide an athletic scholarship to a walk-on (subject to the above numerical limitations). If the football players’ suit against the NCAA is successful, it could have profound implications for all walk-on athletes regardless of their sport.
The walk-ons alleged that they would have receive athletic scholarships to their respective institutions were it not for the NCAA’s limitations on such scholarships. The players alleged that the NCAA and its member institutions enacted the scholarship rules to limit the competition among the colleges for student-athletes and thereby hold down recruitment and scholarship expenses. The walk-ons claimed that these restrictions severely impaired their ability to obtain financial assistance based on their athletic abilities.
The walk-ons allege that the scholarship limits are violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Section 1 of the Act states:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in
restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
is hereby declared to be illegal.
Section 2 prohibits monopolization of a particular market.
Prior to trial, the NCAA asked a federal trial court in Seattle to dismiss the walk-ons’ suit, and enter judgment in its favor, arguing that it was not engaged in “trade or commerce in student-athletes” but is a protector of “amateurism” in intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA argued that since it is not engaged in trade or commerce it is not subject to the provisions of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed.
In a decision delivered late last year, the court disagreed with the NCAA. It noted that several state and federal courts have held that the NCAA and its member institutions are subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and that the awarding of financial aid to students, regardless of their athletic ability, is subject to the Act. The court stated that such activities clearly impact upon “trade or commerce” among the states and, by the NCAA’s own admission, scholarship rules were enacted, at least in part, to reduce the scholarship and recruiting expenses of NCAA-member institutions. The court held that the NCAA was, therefore, subject to suit under
Section 1.
The NCAA asked the court to dismiss the walk-ons’ claims under Section 2, arguing that the NCAA does not have “monopoly power in any relevant market.” The court found that numerous state and federal courts in the U.S. have found that the NCAA has “the power to control intercollegiate athletics” and that the walk-ons’ allegations that the NCAA “exercises an almost absolute control over intercollegiate athletics” has sufficient merit so that further inquiry is warranted to determine whether a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act has occurred.
The court refused to grant the NCAA’s motion to dismiss the suit and ordered that the case proceed to trial.
The case is In re NCAA I-A Walk-On Football Players Litigation, 398 F. Supp.2d 1144 (W.D. Wash. 2005).
Walk-Ons Sue NCAA
COULD THIS IMPACT BASKETBALL SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS?
As the primary membership organization for intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA has enacted a number of rules that, it claims, helps to increase the general competitiveness of its member institutions in all sports. One major area addressed by these rules is the maximum number of scholarships that a school may award in a particular sport. The NCAA, and many commentators and NCAA-member institutions, believe that the cap on scholarships benefits the general quality of play throughout the United States by forcing the talent pool to be “spread around” a greater number of institutions. That is, the cap limits the larger universities, and those with greater resources, from stockpiling talent in a particular sport, and encourages student-athletes to consider playing for those programs that may be less prestigious or have fewer resources, but have the same number of scholarship slots available as do the more prestigious programs.
The number of scholarships that a school may award varies by sports, by Division within the NCAA (i.e., Division I or Division II; athletic scholarships are not awarded by Division III institutions), and gender of the student-athletes that play on a team. The maximum number of scholarships that may awarded by an NCAA Division I college or university at any given time, by sport and gender, is given below. (Please note that partial scholarship are possible because the NCAA permits an institution to grant a particular student-athlete less than 100% aid for participating in a sport; e.g., 10 full scholarships could be divided among 20 student-athletes by giving each student-athlete a half scholarship.)
Sport # of Scholarships for Men # of Scholarships for Women
Basketball 13 15
Baseball (men) 11.7
Softball (women) 12
Field Hockey * 12
Football 85 *
Golf 4.5 6
Gymnastics 6.3 12
Ice Hockey 18 18
Lacrosse 12.6 12
Rowing 0 20
Soccer 9.9 12
Swimming and Diving 9.9 8.1
Tennis 4.5 8
Track and Field 12.6 18
Volleyball 4.5 12
Water Polo 4.5 8
Wrestling 9.9 *
*Indicates that competition is offered only for one gender or that the sport is co-ed.
Note: The above figures indicate the maximum number of scholarships that a college or
university may award. An institution may award fewer scholarships, or none at all, based
on an institution’s budget, focus on a particular sport, or compliance with gender equity
laws such as Title IX.
A group of walk-on football players at NCAA Division I-A schools in the State of Washington have filed suit against the NCAA challenging these limitations. A “walk-on” is a student-athlete who has not necessarily been recruited by a school and who obtained a spot on a team’s roster by trying out for the team. Walk-ons, in general, do not receive scholarships, although sometimes an institution may elect to provide an athletic scholarship to a walk-on (subject to the above numerical limitations). If the football players’ suit against the NCAA is successful, it could have profound implications for all walk-on athletes regardless of their sport.
The walk-ons alleged that they would have receive athletic scholarships to their respective institutions were it not for the NCAA’s limitations on such scholarships. The players alleged that the NCAA and its member institutions enacted the scholarship rules to limit the competition among the colleges for student-athletes and thereby hold down recruitment and scholarship expenses. The walk-ons claimed that these restrictions severely impaired their ability to obtain financial assistance based on their athletic abilities.
The walk-ons allege that the scholarship limits are violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Section 1 of the Act states:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in
restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
is hereby declared to be illegal.
Section 2 prohibits monopolization of a particular market.
Prior to trial, the NCAA asked a federal trial court in Seattle to dismiss the walk-ons’ suit, and enter judgment in its favor, arguing that it was not engaged in “trade or commerce in student-athletes” but is a protector of “amateurism” in intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA argued that since it is not engaged in trade or commerce it is not subject to the provisions of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed.
In a decision delivered late last year, the court disagreed with the NCAA. It noted that several state and federal courts have held that the NCAA and its member institutions are subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and that the awarding of financial aid to students, regardless of their athletic ability, is subject to the Act. The court stated that such activities clearly impact upon “trade or commerce” among the states and, by the NCAA’s own admission, scholarship rules were enacted, at least in part, to reduce the scholarship and recruiting expenses of NCAA-member institutions. The court held that the NCAA was, therefore, subject to suit under
Section 1.
The NCAA asked the court to dismiss the walk-ons’ claims under Section 2, arguing that the NCAA does not have “monopoly power in any relevant market.” The court found that numerous state and federal courts in the U.S. have found that the NCAA has “the power to control intercollegiate athletics” and that the walk-ons’ allegations that the NCAA “exercises an almost absolute control over intercollegiate athletics” has sufficient merit so that further inquiry is warranted to determine whether a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act has occurred.
The court refused to grant the NCAA’s motion to dismiss the suit and ordered that the case proceed to trial.
The case is In re NCAA I-A Walk-On Football Players Litigation, 398 F. Supp.2d 1144 (W.D. Wash. 2005).
Last edited:
