• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The NCAA N ews May 18,1983, volume 20 Number 20 Official Publication of th tional Collegiate Athletic Association NCAA likelv to seek rehearing in TV suit J NCAA legal counsel is preparing The Association has I4 days from tutions. lier ruling, including, attorneys not anticompetitive. Rather, it is a request for a rehearing before the the May I2 date to submit an appli- “If the 10th Circuit Court of believe, Burciaga’s probhition against designed to further the purposes and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals of the cation for a rehearing before the Appeals will not accept a petition for the NCAA being involved in any objectives of the NCAA, which are Association’s appeal from a Federal court en bane (in full). NCAA general a rehearing, I believe we should future football television contracts. to maintain intercollegiate football district court ruling that declared the counsel George H. Gangwere said pursue the matter to the U.S. Supreme “While we hold that the NCAA as an amateur sport and an adjunct NCAA Football Television Plan and the petition for rehearing would be Court, if necessary,” Toner said. cannot lawfully maintain exclusive of the academic endeavors of the implementing contracts to be in vio- based on a number of factors, in- “The majority opinion of the appeals control of the rights, how far such institution.” lation of the Federal antitrust laws. cluding a request that the appeals court indicates that it may be possi- rights may be commonly regulated Judge Barrett, noting that the A panel of three 10th circuit judges court give the NCAA membership a ble to have football television con- involves speculation that should not Universities of Georgia and Okla- May 12, in a 2 to I decision, upheld clearer directive as to means by trols if the plan were redrawn, and I be made on the record of the instant homa had claimed in their suit that the lower-court ruling by Judge Juan which the television plan could be would hope that the appeals court case,” the court stated. institutions had been threatened with C. Burciaga but remanded it to the adjusted to comply with antitrust itself would provide some more pre- trial court for further consideration laws. cise guidance in this direction.” of the earlier injunction, which the NCAA President John L. Toner What does court’s ruling mean? The three-judge panel of the 10th NCAA has claimed is too broad. said May I6 that he believes the l The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Burciaga’sdecision that circuit reached its decision after six The stay of the trial court’s decision Associatton should pursue the case the NCAA Football Television Plan violates Federal antitrust laws but sent months of deliberation. A total of previously instituted by the 10th by all possible means in the interest the matter back to Judge Burciaga to clarify the terms of his injunction. The eight judges sit on the 10th circuit. Circuit Court of Appeals remains in of protecting the legitimate educa- court’s mandate for this purpose would occur about June 2. effect. tional interests of all member instii In writing the majority opinion, @The stay of Judge Burciaga’s order remains in effect pending various Judge James Logan said, “We affirm appeal opportunities available to the NCAA. Thus, the television plan and the district court’s conclusion that network contracts continue to he binding. Court ruling meets the television plan is unreasonably aThe NCAA has until May 26 to file an application for a rehearing by the restrictive of competitive conditions three-judge panel or the entire, eight-judge 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. and therefore unlawful. aFiling with the U.S. Supreme Court of a writ of certiorari remains a with some misgivings “It increases concentration in the possibility for the Association. The writ of certiorari amounts to a request marketplace; it prevents producers that the case be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Reactions to the 10th Circuit Court but there will be a concept presented from exercising independeot pricing of Appeals’decision to uphold Judge to them. If the NCAA gets a stay, and output decisions; it precludes Circuit Judge James E. Barrett, termination of their NCAA mem- Juan C. Burciaga’s September 1982 that’s one thing. But if they don’t get broadcasters from purchasing a the senior member of the panel, dis- bership if they participated in some ruling that the NCAA’s football a stay, we want to be ready to fill the product for which there are no read- agreed with his colleagues and wrote other football television plan, wrote, television contracts constituted an void.” ily available substitutes; it facilitates in his dissenting opinion, “We agree “The NCAA’s expulsion sanction illegal restraint of trade were varied, Barry Wood, spokesman cartelization. Against this array of with the NCAA that the trial court appears to be an enforcement mech- but most reflected misgivings regard- University of Georgia antitrust injuries, the NCAA’s justi- erred in holding that the television anism and not a sham for an anti- ing the effect of the decision. “We felt the university’s position fications are insufficient.” plan and network contracts consti- competitive purpose.” A sampling of the comments made was correct. While it is gratifying, it tute a group boycott. He also wrote that he believed the publicly follows: is no surprise, especially since the In remanding the matter to Judge “I am convinced that although plaintiffs were insisting on “the best David E. Cawood 1J.S. Department of Justice filed a Burciaga‘s court, however. the court there is evidence to support the trial- of two worlds” in proclaiming their NCAA television program director brief in support of our position. We said, “We agree with the NCAA that court findings, my review of the allegiance to all other NCAA rules the trial court erred in holding that “We continue to believe that felt the NCAA was in violation of entire evidence leads me to a firm and regulations pertaining to inter- the television plan and network con- television protection and limitations antitrust laws. conviction that a mistake has been collegiate football and, at the same tracts constitute agroup boycott.. .” time, insisting on invalidating the are necessary for the welfare of “As far as implications of the suit, committed. The court suggested that the lower intercollegiate football and for main- we don’t know. There are numerous “It is my view. that the NCAA NCAA television contracts and See courr, pagr 12 court reconsider portions of its ear- taining that activity appropriately television plan’s primary purpose is See NCAA. page I2 within the structure of higher edu- cation. We will continue our efforts to maintain the validity of the NCAA Chairs selected for Division I June meeting Football Television Plan that pre- viously was adopted by the mem- Six national leaders in intercolle- bership.” giate athletics have been named to chair separate sessions during the first Charles M. Neinas, executive director Division I summer membership meet- College Football Association ing June 24-25 at the Hyatt Regency “[The ruling] has shown that the Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri. NCAA cannot seize an institution’s The meeting will feature separate rights. We’ve developed certain sessions for faculty athletic representa- contingency plans, and 1 would hope tivcs, directors of athletics, confcrcnce we would be able to develop some- commissioners, primary women thing that would satisfy our members administrators of athletics programs, and be within the law. basketball coaches and football “You have to read Burciaga’s coaches, as well as opening and clos- opinion. His point is, the reason he’s ing joint sessions of all participants. not going to let the NCAA back in is Chairs for four of those sessions because he can’t trust the NCAA. He were named by the Division I Steering can’t trust them not to go back in Committee: NCAA Secretary-Trca- and create a monopoly. The only surer John R. Davis, Oregon State way the NCAA can be controlled, Univcrstty, faculty representatives; because of the subtle ways in which Eugcnc F. Corrigan, University of they can operate, is not to let them Notre Dame, directors of athletics; back in at all. G. Jean Cerra Eugene F. Corrigan Fred Jacoby, Southwest Athletic Con- “It [the CFA membership] author- ference, commissioners, and G. Jean ized us to set up a television plan and Cerra, University of Missouri, Colum- to go to TV entities for the purpose bia, primary women administrators. of investigating its salability. We’ve The chairs for the coaches’ separate done that. We will announce it sessions were appointed by the to the membership at an appropriate National Association of Basketball time and in an appropriate manner. I Coaches and the American Football don’t know if they’ll vote on it per se, Coaches Association. Bob Knight, Indiana University, will lead the has- In the News ketball coaches’ meeting, while Bo There is a growing demand for Schembechler, University of Michi graduate programs in sports adminis- gan, president of the AFCA. will chait. tration 2 the football coaches’ session. Championship preview in Division I Twenty head football coaches and basehall 4 20 head basketball coaches have been (‘reighton University boasts a hasr- selected by the AFCA and the NABC, ball team member who can play respectively. to attend the meeting. In comprtitively at all pc*itions IO addition, each voting conference in Division I has been invited to send Bowllgame designation will be from two to lour representatives, based dropped from 1983 Divivision I-AA on the conference’s sponsorship of Football Championship 12 Fred Jucohy Bo Schemhrchler Bob Knighl men’s or women’s programs or both.

Load more

  12

Copy Link