Lawsuit challenges Ivy League "no-scholarship" policy

Donate To GopherHole
Gophers_4life said:
Surely, if AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile communicated with each other and agreed to set the data allowances of all bottom tier "unlimited" wireless plans to be only 1GB of "premium" data per month, and highly throttled data after that, you'd agree that that is illegal?

I'm curious to hear your opinions on why this (so obviously) is nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

Even in the cellular world there are many lower cost options. In the college athletics world the ivies are less than 10% of D1 options. The athletes could certainly compete for a full-ride option elsewhere (and should have, obviously). The Ivy degree credential OTOH far offsets whatever the subsidized COA turned out to be. Are Ivy programs even profitable? There are no merit scholarships either. This seems silly on all counts.
 

Gophers_4life said:
They aren't?

If a superstar postdoc in Biology at the U interviewed for a tenure-track assistant professor position at both Brown and Cornell, and Cornell offered more money, thus they accepted the Cornell offer, no one would bat an eye, right?
Click to expand...

Athletes are not employees
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Even in the cellular world there are many lower cost options. In the college athletics world the ivies are less than 10% of D1 options. The athletes could certainly compete for a full-ride option elsewhere (and should have, obviously). The Ivy degree credential OTOH far offsets whatever the subsidized COA turned out to be. Are Ivy programs even profitable? There are no merit scholarships either. This seems silly on all counts.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I'm not sure why the argument of "you say that the limited number of providers of premium _____ have fixed that specific niche of the market ..... but so what? You could just go elsewhere and get a non-premium version" should win the day?
 


Gophers_4life said:
Hmm. I'm not sure why the argument of "you say that the limited number of providers of premium _____ have fixed that specific niche of the market ..... but so what? You could just go elsewhere and get a non-premium version" should win the day?
Click to expand...

Isn’t that how markets work?
 


Gophers_4life said:
Agreed.

Not sure why that takes away the rights?


Students can be and are employees at every university. And every university employees a bevy of non-academic, non-student workers in addition.
Click to expand...

Volunteers agree to not be paid; certainly could be. Not anyones business. Paid in dopamine.
 






Pompous Elitist said:
How are they fixing a market?
Click to expand...
In exactly the same way as, in my Biology postdoc who interviews at Cornell and Brown if both of those told the postdoc "we really like you and would love for you to join the department! Schools in the Ivy League have a set rate and benefits package for new assistant professors, which is the same at all eight schools and cannot be negotiated. That is our only and final offer, please let us know your decision as soon as possible".
 

Again, I don't think it is the idea itself so much, as that they all communicated and were in it together.
 

Gophers_4life said:
They aren't?

If a superstar postdoc in Biology at the U interviewed for a tenure-track assistant professor position at both Brown and Cornell, and Cornell offered more money, thus they accepted the Cornell offer, no one would bat an eye, right?
Click to expand...
His point is they’re not competing businesses on the football field. The players aren’t employed by the school and sports isn’t why the schools exist.

Schools getting together and agreeing not to offer scholarships is obviously wrong in your opinion - it’s just not tampering in the way you think it is.
 

This lawsuit has been brought by a couple of students representing a hypothetical group of complainer kids, already highly favored by society, who want the judiciary to increase the amount by which they are favored. Basically, these are students who have been offered full-ride scholarships at non-Ivy institutions (generally Power 5 types with huge athletic department budgets) but--because of their families' income or wealth--have received "need based" offers of only partial (or no) aid from the Ivies to which they they have been accepted. These are not plaintiffs who can credibly play the sympathy card.

In real life (this situation occurs a lot), students and their families are often called upon to make a value judgment. For example, a great local hockey player (also a good student) from a family with high income or wealth might be asked to choose between: (1) a full-ride scholarship and great hockey experience at a tremendous institution such as the U, or (2) modest, or no, scholarship aid and a pretty decent hockey experience at, say, Harvard. Harvard provides essentially the same education as the U--knowledge is the same everywhere--but offers a live-in, on-campus environment, and a degree, with a little more cachet--and a different set of post-grad opportunities and connections. I've seen local hockey players break either way on this choice.

As a result, an Ivy hockey team at, say, Harvard tends to be populated by kids from families who qualify for very high needs-based financial aid + kids from very prosperous families (often prep school grads) whose families value Harvard "admission" far above an offer of scholarship money. Caught in the rip-tide are exceptional student-athletes from middle-income families who would receive only modest financial aid at Harvard (based on "need") but who hold multiple offers of full ride scholarships from non-Ivies.

This "need-based scholarships" system was chosen by the Ivies in part for equity reasons, and in part because they don't want to use their academic endowments to fund superfluous athletic scholarships for students whose families don't need the money. Ivies don't have much in the way of sports revenue--no meaningful television contracts, sparsely attended games, etc. The Ivies don't have athletic-generated revenues to devote to a full slate of athletic scholarships.

Another consideration is the crush of applicants at Ivy schools. For this year's class, Harvard had 61,220 applicants and accepted 1,984--an acceptance rate of 4%. There is essentially a limitless supply of student-athletes from wealthy and middle-income families who would choose Harvard with little or no scholarship aid over a non-Ivy full-ride scholarship--because those particular families place an extremely high value on "admission" alone; they needn't be further seduced by a full-ride scholarship.

So, here's what the suit boils down to: some kids from middle or upper income families who have full-ride scholarship offers at non-Ivies are whining because the Ivies will admit them but won't match their non-Ivy full-ride scholarship offer. Big deal. Let the Ivies be the Ivies.
 
Last edited:



Gophergrandpa said:
This lawsuit has been brought by a couple of students representing a hypothetical group of complainer kids, already highly favored by society, who want the judiciary to increase the amount by which they are favored. Basically, these are students who have been offered full-ride scholarships at non-Ivy institutions (generally Power 5 types with huge athletic department budgets) but--because of their families' income or wealth--have received "need based" offers of only partial (or no) aid from the Ivies to which they they have been accepted. These are not plaintiffs who can credibly play the sympathy card.

In real life (this situation occurs a lot), students and their families are often called upon to make a value judgment. For example, a great local hockey player (also a good student) from a family with high income or wealth might be asked to choose between: (1) a full-ride scholarship and great hockey experience at a tremendous institution such as the U, or (2) modest, or no, scholarship aid and a pretty decent hockey experience at, say, Harvard. Harvard provides essentially the same education as the U--knowledge is the same everywhere--but offers a live-in, on-campus environment, and a degree, with a little more cachet--and a different set of post-grad opportunities and connections. I've seen local hockey players break either way on this choice.

As a result, an Ivy hockey team at, say, Harvard tends to be populated by kids from families who qualify for very high needs-based financial aid + kids from very prosperous families (often prep school grads) whose families value Harvard "admission" far above an offer of scholarship money. Caught in the rip-tide are exceptional student-athletes from middle-income families who would receive only modest financial aid at Harvard (based on "need") but who hold multiple offers of full ride scholarships from non-Ivies.

This "need-based scholarships" system was chosen by the Ivies in part for equity reasons, and in part because they don't want to use their academic endowments to fund superfluous athletic scholarships for students whose families don't need the money. Ivies don't have much in the way of sports revenue--no meaningful television contracts, sparsely attended games, etc. The Ivies don't have athletic-generated revenues to devote to a full slate of athletic scholarships.

Another consideration is the crush of applicants at Ivy schools. For this year's class, Harvard had 61,220 applicants and accepted 1,984--an acceptance rate of 4%. There is essentially a limitless supply of student-athletes from wealthy and middle-income families who would choose Harvard with little or no scholarship aid over a non-Ivy full-ride scholarship--because their families place extremely high value on "admission" alone; they needn't be further seduced by a full-ride scholarship.

So, here's what the suit boils down to: some kids from middle or upper income families who have full-ride scholarship offers at non-Ivies are whining because the Ivies will admit them but won't match their non-Ivy full-ride scholarship offer. Big deal. Let the Ivies be the Ivies.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this entire chain of reasoning — while correct in my opinion and I agree with it — is not what the lawsuit is about.

If Harvard, Brown, etc were independent schools and each arrived at the needs-based only decision independently, then the lawsuit has no leg to stand on.


It’s that they all conspired together.

That’s what they’re gonna try, and hope to land on a sympathetic judge. Perhaps even Brett Kavanaugh, if it gets that far.
 

GVLCGopherFan said:
His point is they’re not competing businesses on the football field. The players aren’t employed by the school and sports isn’t why the schools exist.

Schools getting together and agreeing not to offer scholarships is obviously wrong in your opinion - it’s just not tampering in the way you think it is.
Click to expand...
I personally am not sure how wrong I even think it is, in the narrow context of amateur athletics. Which I suspect will be a big part of the defense.

I just think the antitrust angle is interesting, particularly in the larger scope of college athletics overall.
 

I wonder if as a business ... could Ivy League football even pay for itself to operate / offer scholarships?

Quick googling showed attendance numbers consistently under 10k a game. I don't think they have a TV contract of any note ...

Would the idea be that they should try to eek out every last penny and pass that on to players? Or what? Fold?
 

Gophers_4life said:
Sorry, but this entire chain of reasoning — while correct in my opinion and I agree with it — is not what the lawsuit is about.

If Harvard, Brown, etc were independent schools and each arrived at the needs-based only decision independently, then the lawsuit has no leg to stand on.


It’s that they all conspired together.

That’s what they’re gonna try, and hope to land on a sympathetic judge. Perhaps even Brett Kavanaugh, if it gets that far.
Click to expand...
Are Power Five schools conspiring illegally by, through their trade association (NCAA), mutually limiting athletic scholarship to 85 per school? Subject to the same challenge?

I agree that "conspiracy" must be at the heart of an anti-trust claim. But as you know, not every conspiracy--an agreement among two or more parties to act or not act--is illegal. Most are legal, in fact. When PJ, Rossi and the portion coaches "conspire" to determine various defensive players' playing time, nothing illegal has happened unless the conspiracy furthers something else that is in itself a separate crime. For instance, if it were proved that the coaches group in a state-funded university was determining playing time based on invidious racial discrimination, that would be a prohibited conspiracy. But a conspiracy to determine playing time based on talent, work ethic, preparation, previous on-field performance, etc., isn't an illegal conspiracy.

As to the anti-trust scholarships lawsuit, it isn't going to leave the starting blocks unless the Ivy League's "need based" scholarship pact is a conspiracy "in restraint of trade or commerce." It will be interesting to see if a court will rule that Ivy League athletic programs are engaged in an activity that is the type of "trade or commerce" intended to be within the ambit of the US anti-trust laws. Big Ten & SEC football programs, with their massive TV contracts and huge attendance, might rise to the level of such trade or commerce. But the Ivy League has essentially opted out of student athletics as a form of trade or commerce. The lawsuit, in this regard, is looking for a ruling that says a league of teams can't opt out, can't mutually agree to refrain from making profligate scholarship bids--ones that ignore need AND can't be covered by athletic revenues, meaning the scholarships must come from student fees or academic endowments. To me, the irony is that a court is being asked to compel an association of colleges to engage in "destructive competition," even though there other trade laws that are express in prohibiting destructive competition.

I am going to be following this one ...
 
Last edited:

Gophergrandpa said:
Are Power Five schools conspiring to set price by, through their trade association, mutually limiting athletic scholarship to 85 per school? Subject to the same challenge?
Click to expand...
It’s the NCAA who sets that, but indeed that vary question was asked earlier in the thread.

I’m sure such slippery slope arguments have been argued to judges as cautionary tales against establishing new precedent, since the dawn of such things.
 

A way around all this, including similarly slippery questions about NIL:

make new law!!
 

Gophers_4life said:
It’s the NCAA who sets that, but indeed that vary question was asked earlier in the thread.

I’m sure such slippery slope arguments have been argued to judges as cautionary tales against establishing new precedent, since the dawn of such things.
Click to expand...
It is an anti-trust violation if businesses conspire to restrain trade or commerce through the intermediary of a trade association of which the businesses are all members. The NCAA, to me, is clearly a trade association for Power Five football programs ... IF college football is indeed a "trade" or form of "commerce" intended to be regulated by the federal and state anti-trust laws.

Once courts decide that college football programs are a form of "trade or commerce" intended to be regulated by the anti-trust laws, we are on the "slippery slope."
 

Gophergrandpa said:
It is an anti-trust violation if businesses conspire to restrain trade or commerce through the intermediary of a trade association of which the businesses are all members. The NCAA, to me, is clearly a trade association for Power Five football programs ... IF college football is indeed a "trade" or form of "commerce" intended to be regulated by the federal and state anti-trust laws.

Once courts decide that college football programs are a form of "trade or commerce" intended to be regulated by the anti-trust laws, we are on the "slippery slope."
Click to expand...
Well, we shall see!

Like I said: easy way to clarify all this to make new law!
 

Below is an excerpt from a recent law review article about the US Supreme Court's decision in the Altson case, that one that cut loose the NIL mess. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Alston made clear that its application of anti-trust reasoning to the "multi-conference" NCAA did not bind individual conferences from being more restrictive in limiting student-athlete benefits.

"Though the NCAA’s stronghold on compensation limits for student-athletes was dismantled by Alston, the Court’s holding could still be irrelevant. Riddled with incendiary criticism of the NCAA, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is a signal to the NCAA, conferences, and universities that the NCAA’s amateurism model is cracking.[74] Athletic conferences comprised of NCAA member schools may decide to continue limiting education-related benefits, just as the NCAA had.[75] Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch stressed that “individual conferences remain free to impose whatever rules they choose.”[76] The word “individual” is of utmost importance in this proclamation, as a conference acting on its own is unlikely to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.[77] This is an especially likely scenario for athletic conferences like the Ivy League, which are not concerned about competing in the student-athlete recruiting market.[78] Justice Gorsuch underscored that the court’s injunction against caps on education-related benefits applied “to the NCAA and multi-conference agreements”—individual conferences and the schools that constitute them may choose to impose tighter restrictions if they wish.[79] Therefore, if a conference decides to limit education-related benefits in ways that are more restrictive than competing conferences, it can draw direct support from the Alston decision."

This new suit, attacking an individual conference (the Ivy League), seeks to drive the next nail in amateur college athletics. More the Kavanaugh approach than the Gorsuch approach. Most of the Supreme Court Justices attended an Ivy, so if they decide that it was Congress's intent to destroy the Ivy League's "need based" scholarship pact, they will know exactly what they are doing and what they are destroying. Stay tuned.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Below is an excerpt from a recent law review article about the US Supreme Court's decision in the Altson case, that one that cut loose the NIL mess. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Alston made clear that its application of anti-trust reasoning to the "multi-conference" NCAA did not bind individual conferences from being more restrictive in limiting student-athlete benefits.

"Though the NCAA’s stronghold on compensation limits for student-athletes was dismantled by Alston, the Court’s holding could still be irrelevant. Riddled with incendiary criticism of the NCAA, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is a signal to the NCAA, conferences, and universities that the NCAA’s amateurism model is cracking.[74] Athletic conferences comprised of NCAA member schools may decide to continue limiting education-related benefits, just as the NCAA had.[75] Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch stressed that “individual conferences remain free to impose whatever rules they choose.”[76] The word “individual” is of utmost importance in this proclamation, as a conference acting on its own is unlikely to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.[77] This is an especially likely scenario for athletic conferences like the Ivy League, which are not concerned about competing in the student-athlete recruiting market.[78] Justice Gorsuch underscored that the court’s injunction against caps on education-related benefits applied “to the NCAA and multi-conference agreements”—individual conferences and the schools that constitute them may choose to impose tighter restrictions if they wish.[79] Therefore, if a conference decides to limit education-related benefits in ways that are more restrictive than competing conferences, it can draw direct support from the Alston decision."

This new suit, attacking an individual conference (the Ivy League), seeks to drive the next nail in amateur college athletics. More the Kavanaugh approach than the Gorsuch approach. Most of the Supreme Court Justices attended an Ivy, so if they decide that it was Congress's intent to destroy the Ivy League's "need based" scholarship pact, they will know exactly what they are doing and what they are destroying. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
Yeah there's a weird misunderstanding about the case.

SCOTUS made big changes but held WAY back on completely unweaving the weave of college sports.

Some folks seem to think all bets are off, and maybe SCOTUS revisits things later, but SCOTUS is generally aware of second order effects and wary of triggering a huge number of them at a time.
 
Last edited:

One of my nieces went to Harvard, and she was on the Rowing team there for a season or two - so technically she was an Ivy League student-Athlete. She has also worked in law offices, so I will have to get her take on this next time I see her. (She lives in Hollywood now, writing for sitcoms.)

FWIW - I have never had the guts to ask my sister how much it cost to send a kid from rural MN to Harvard.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Please decode this response into English. Thanks!
Click to expand...

😄
You were equating athletes to employees, which they are not, and particularly at the Ivy League schools. No individual, insofar as I’m aware, is compelled by any forces anywhere in the USA (legally) to volunteer unpaid time at any entity except as result of a judicial decision. Non-employees can choose to spend their time volunteering, or working, or on hobbies, or napping. Volunteering time has its own unique rewards including a self-satisfying dopamine hit, or positive PR in some cases. Similarly, participation in athletics has some intangible benefits. In the situation at hand college-bound athletes can choose to compete for scholarships or not, it’s their choice. They have many, many options. Accepting a spot at an Ivy League school is certainly a kick to the nuts, probably comparable to forced labor at an internment camp.

Kids these days. (shakes fist at sky).
 

short ornery norwegian said:
One of my nieces went to Harvard, and she was on the Rowing team there for a season or two - so technically she was an Ivy League student-Athlete. She has also worked in law offices, so I will have to get her take on this next time I see her. (She lives in Hollywood now, writing for sitcoms.)

FWIW - I have never had the guts to ask my sister how much it cost to send a kid from rural MN to Harvard.
Click to expand...
Likely nothing out of pocket. Harvard has extensive needs-based aid for all students, which I believe covers 100% if your household makes less than a decently high number.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
😄
You were equating athletes to employees, which they are not, and particularly at the Ivy League schools. No individual, insofar as I’m aware, is compelled by any forces anywhere in the USA (legally) to volunteer unpaid time at any entity except as result of a judicial decision. Non-employees can choose to spend their time volunteering, or working, or on hobbies, or napping. Volunteering time has its own unique rewards including a self-satisfying dopamine hit, or positive PR in some cases. Similarly, participation in athletics has some intangible benefits. In the situation at hand college-bound athletes can choose to compete for scholarships or not, it’s their choice. They have many, many options. Accepting a spot at an Ivy League school is certainly a kick to the nuts, probably comparable to forced labor at an internment camp.

Kids these days. (shakes fist at sky).
Click to expand...
Just to set the record straight:

if Brown and Cornell both badly want a football player from say St Louis Park, and both were offering the same need-based aid that covers let’s say 75% of FCOA, and then Cornell was willing to offer to make up the 25% with an athletic scholarship …

you don’t like that? Bad form? Unfair, unjust?
 

short ornery norwegian said:
One of my nieces went to Harvard, and she was on the Rowing team there for a season or two - so technically she was an Ivy League student-Athlete. She has also worked in law offices, so I will have to get her take on this next time I see her. (She lives in Hollywood now, writing for sitcoms.)

FWIW - I have never had the guts to ask my sister how much it cost to send a kid from rural MN to Harvard.
Click to expand...
Make sure to wear the proper attire when asking 🧐


Quite.
 

Gophers_4life said:
They aren't?

If a superstar postdoc in Biology at the U interviewed for a tenure-track assistant professor position at both Brown and Cornell, and Cornell offered more money, thus they accepted the Cornell offer, no one would bat an eye, right?
Click to expand...
Competing for academic staff is not the same thing as competing for athletic revenue (of which the Ivys make very little, if anything).

Conferences are more comparable to business collaborations than competitors.
 

Gophers_4life said:
You said NCAA can't fix scholarships at anything.

That would be all scholarship limits at all divisions.
Click to expand...
That’s what I said

If the Ivy League can’t fix scholarships at 0
Then the MIAC can’t fox scholarships at 0
If the Ivy League can’t fix scholarships at 0, they can’t fix them at 65 either.
Then the NCAA can’t fix scholarships at any number
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom