Printable View
Throwing it out there, could this ever be used to try and break the conferences up to, say, 12 teams each? Paying players makes these de facto corporations at this point. The consolidation is anti-competitive for existing conferences. I’m not a lawyer, but assume someone on here is (and probably a lawyer nerd, which I’m ok with as a finance nerd)
Paying the players makes Sherman LESS applicable. college sports are now a competitor for pro leagues. college sports now no longer meet the standards of market domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoseBowl1942
Is one of several arguments that would defeat this lawsuit in preliminary hearings.
Trying to get creative here. If not for us, for the city of Greensboro!
I think we'd have more luck with Sherman, Professor Peabody, and the Wayback (WABAC) machine...
I'm sure I'm not alone, but given access to the Wayback, I would opt for 1983-2003 for the optimal line up.Quote:
Originally Posted by budwom
I get it. But realignment is going to be dicey for Duke. Greensboro is hosed. Realistically it doesn't make sense to hold a tourney in such a small city. Even less so to be headquartered there.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoseBowl1942
We got a lot of smart alumni, including those from our T14 law school. Let’s find a way to trust bust the BIG and SEC. Speak softly, carry a big stick, and save college football!
The Sherman Antitrust (or any other such act) almost surely wouldn't apply to state schools, which form a huge majority of the P-5 conferences.
So, what are we talking about?
Nothing. We’re desperate. Trying to find a way onto the lifeboats or plug the hole in the titanicQuote:
Originally Posted by sagegrouse