To clear a few things up.
First, the plaintiff's lawyers certainly chose to file in the Northern District of California because they thought its judges would be more friendly to their legal theories, but they didn't get to pick the judge - there are about 20 judges out there and they could have gotten any. Second, they didn't win on the merits of their claim. They won in the sense that the judge found current players meet the definition of a class under Civil Rule 23 which was pretty much a no-brainer. The plaintiff's lost in that there class of former players was denied certification. Monetarily, that's a much bigger deal (for now at least). Third, this is an anti-trust case. It doesn't matter what kind of contracts the players sign or signed if the NCAA is found to be violating anti-trust law.
We are in need of someone to take over the maintenance of the MMB. Yosef has done it for a long time, and we are grateful for all he has done, but life happens and he no longer has the time to devote to its upkeep. If anyone here is interested in helping to keep the board running, please let me know via DM.
College athletes can seek cut of TV money: U.S. judge
-
wataugan03
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:54 pm
- School: Appalachian State
-
JCline0429
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: College athletes can seek cut of TV money: U.S. judge
wataugan03 wrote:To clear a few things up.
First, the plaintiff's lawyers certainly chose to file in the Northern District of California because they thought its judges would be more friendly to their legal theories, but they didn't get to pick the judge - there are about 20 judges out there and they could have gotten any. Second, they didn't win on the merits of their claim. They won in the sense that the judge found current players meet the definition of a class under Civil Rule 23 which was pretty much a no-brainer. The plaintiff's lost in that there class of former players was denied certification. Monetarily, that's a much bigger deal (for now at least). Third, this is an anti-trust case. It doesn't matter what kind of contracts the players sign or signed if the NCAA is found to be violating anti-trust law.
The northern California district is considered one of the three most liberal courts in the nation.
a.k.a JC0429