Another point of view of the UND vs NCAA

[UND Fan]

Well, I feel much better, and I feel more informed.

I also appreciate the insight!

[Teeder11]

No problem UND Fan and Siouxbooster. Thanks for seeing it for what it was, just additional insight.

[HowBoutThemBison?]

One question is how can you call them a monopolistic entity when NAIA exists? I know it is obviously much lower quality but the NCAA cannot be blamed for being the more successful of the two....

[ScottM]

One question is how can you call them a monopolistic entity when NAIA exists? I know it is obviously much lower quality but the NCAA cannot be blamed for being the more successful of the two....

Microsoft was found to be a monopoly in the US and EU for certain products, even though it has/had a myriad of competitors. "Monopoly" does not necessarily mean a complete lack of competition, so much as potential abuses of market power by a dominant player(s). Just ask Google.

[The Sicatoka]

One question is how can you call them a monopolistic entity when NAIA exists? I know it is obviously much lower quality but the NCAA cannot be blamed for being the more successful of the two....

The NCAA is an "only game in town" type of monopoly when it comes to college hockey because the NAIA doesn't sponsor college hockey.

[HowBoutThemBison?]

The NCAA is an "only game in town" type of monopoly when it comes to college hockey because the NAIA doesn't sponsor college hockey.

Would UND have a case due to one sport alone? Not trying to make anyone mad, just too lazy to do any reasearch.

[HowBoutThemBison?]

Time to give it up and troll in other waters.

Ah I apologize my friend, for throwing out different ideas. Trolling would insinuate that I, HowBoutThemBison?, am trying to upset people with that comment I put regarding NCAA and NAIA. If you would like me to troll, I can do that. Here would be a troll translation for my comment.

The "Whioux" suck so bad, they are super terrible. No one cares at all about them. They can't say its a monopoly when they can go chill out in NAIA where they belong, because they are that bad at sports!

^^^^^^^ That would be a troll comment. I hope I taught you something about trolling, if that one example is not enough, you can check out about half my posts on siouxsports.com as some of them are very confrontational and trollish, the other half are not. If you have difficulty in finding these posts or figuring out which ones are trollish, and which ones are not, I would be MORE than happy to help you out. Also, if you would like to see other "styles" on trolling, go on any sports site for teams in the area, and look for Lakesbison posts, as they are often times described by friends and foes alike as "trollish." Again, if you cannot find examples and would like to see some, I would be more than willing to help you out.

[jodcon]

Also, if you would like to see other "styles" on trolling, go on any sports site for teams in the area, and look for Lakesbison posts, as they are often times described by friends and foes alike as "asshtrollish." Again, if you cannot find examples and would like to see some, I would be more than willing to help you out.

Fixed your post.

[gjw007]

One question is how can you call them a monopolistic entity when NAIA exists? I know it is obviously much lower quality but the NCAA cannot be blamed for being the more successful of the two....

Simply because there is (token) competition, it doesn't mean there isn't a monopoly. The NCAA controls the landscape because of its size and power. One example where monopolies exist can be shown by the barriers to creating competition. In some respects, this can be monetary such as the space industry trying to build a satellite. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to build the satellite and launch it let alone the infrastructure to support it. There are only a few big companies and most of them started by the support of the government. Another example, how many major ocean cargo companies are there and how easy would it be to get started.

Microsoft is also a very good example as there are many different OSs than Windows but since Microsoft controls roughly 90% of the market, the other competitors are not significant to affect any changes or choices that Microsoft makes. Microsoft has a history of buying up a product or producing a competitive product that resulted in other products no longer being marketed. This can be seen when Microsoft attempted to freeze out the various browsers several years ago by bundling and making restrictions for computer manufactures for the software packaged with their computer. It was only after the Federal government's anti-trust action that the market for browsers opened up on the Windows machine. And note, there are far more competitors to Microsoft than there is to the NCAA yet Microsoft has to be careful and is watched carefully due to its monopoly on the OS market

[JackJD]

Simply because there is (token) competition, it doesn't mean there isn't a monopoly. The NCAA controls the landscape because of its size and power. One example where monopolies exist can be shown by the barriers to creating competition. In some respects, this can be monetary such as the space industry trying to build a satellite. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to build the satellite and launch it let alone the infrastructure to support it. There are only a few big companies and most of them started by the support of the government. Another example, how many major ocean cargo companies are there and how easy would it be to get started.

Microsoft is also a very good example as there are many different OSs than Windows but since Microsoft controls roughly 90% of the market, the other competitors are not significant to affect any changes or choices that Microsoft makes. Microsoft has a history of buying up a product or producing a competitive product that resulted in other products no longer being marketed. This can be seen when Microsoft attempted to freeze out the various browsers several years ago by bundling and making restrictions for computer manufactures for the software packaged with their computer. It was only after the Federal government's anti-trust action that the market for browsers opened up on the Windows machine. And note, there are far more competitors to Microsoft than there is to the NCAA yet Microsoft has to be careful and is watched carefully due to its monopoly on the OS market

I do not claim any expertise in anti-trust law. But, I'm thinking about staying in a Holiday Inn Express so I may as well learn something in advance. Actually, I've been involved in a few cases in which anti-trust claims were asserted but in those cases the anti-trust issues were always quickly dismissed and the cases proceeded on other issues.

Do you think the analogy with Microsoft is accurate? Microsoft is a for-profit business while the NCAA is a non-profit, voluntary association of schools which support amateur athletics. Now, I know the obvious: the NCAA makes huge money and for the most part, is the only college game in town (I agree that the NAIA is insignificant). But still, it is not a business in the technical sense like Microsoft. Are you (or anyone) aware of a party successfully asserting anti-trust claims against the NCAA in the past?

Side note: anyone remember the old USFL and its anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL? The USFL won -- the jury found the NFL engaged in anti-competitve conduct which damagted the USFL.. But, the jury concluded the USFL was doomed irrespective of the anti-competitive conduct of the NFL. So, the USFL won $1.00. Under the applicable anti-trust law, the damages were trebled:. $3.00. I remember the USFL attorneys trying to put on a good face by claiming they were vindicated (yeah, right, couldn't buy a cup of Starbucks today with that $3.00 verdict). The court did award the USFL $5.5 million in attorneys fees, a decision allowed to stand on appeal. When the dust settled, the USFL had lost something like $160 million in its short existence. (I think it tried to argue that if the NFL hadn't stepped on its neck, the USFL would have climbed into profitability.)

[Chewey]

I do not claim any expertise in anti-trust law. But, I'm thinking about staying in a Holiday Inn Express so I may as well learn something in advance. Actually, I've been involved in a few cases in which anti-trust claims were asserted but in those cases the anti-trust issues were always quickly dismissed and the cases proceeded on other issues.

Do you think the analogy with Microsoft is accurate? Microsoft is a for-profit business while the NCAA is a non-profit, voluntary association of schools which support amateur athletics. Now, I know the obvious: the NCAA makes huge money and for the most part, is the only college game in town (I agree that the NAIA is insignificant). But still, it is not a business in the technical sense like Microsoft. Are you (or anyone) aware of a party successfully asserting anti-trust claims against the NCAA in the past?

Side note: anyone remember the old USFL and its anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL? The USFL won -- the jury found the NFL engaged in anti-competitve conduct which damagted the USFL.. But, the jury concluded the USFL was doomed irrespective of the anti-competitive conduct of the NFL. So, the USFL won $1.00. Under the applicable anti-trust law, the damages were trebled:. $3.00. I remember the USFL attorneys trying to put on a good face by claiming they were vindicated (yeah, right, couldn't buy a cup of Starbucks today with that $3.00 verdict). The court did award the USFL $5.5 million in attorneys fees, a decision allowed to stand on appeal. When the dust settled, the USFL had lost something like $160 million in its short existence. (I think it tried to argue that if the NFL hadn't stepped on its neck, the USFL would have climbed into profitability.)

I'd have to agree with the USFL. I was in high school at the time and I remember the NFL being scared $#!+!@$$. Had the USFL succeeded, does anyone think we'd see this lockout business and owner arrogance at such a level? Good points above. The NCAA is a unique beast, however. I truly believe that if push came to shove at this point in time the NCAA would be seen as a de facto monopoly. Let's hope that the NCAA imposes new sanctions on UND other than those stated in the surrender agreement so the State can pursue it with new claims. The many anti-nickname Chicken Littles commenting on the Herald editorials don't seem to understand how to read and interpret a settlement agreement.

[JackJD]

I'd have to agree with the USFL. I was in high school at the time and I remember the NFL being scared $#!+!@$$. Had the USFL succeeded, does anyone think we'd see this lockout business and owner arrogance at such a level? Good points above. The NCAA is a unique beast, however. I truly believe that if push came to shove at this point in time the NCAA would be seen as a de facto monopoly. Let's hope that the NCAA imposes new sanctions on UND other than those stated in the surrender agreement so the State can pursue it with new claims. The many anti-nickname Chicken Littles commenting on the Herald editorials don't seem to understand how to read and interpret a settlement agreement.

Lets assume the NCAA is a monopoly. Is it proscribed by the anti-trust laws? That's the question. Not all monopolies are prohibited. For example, Major League Baseball has some exemptions. While not a 'monopoly', another example of an industry that is exempt from anti-trust laws is the insurance industry ... the Insurance Services Organization routinely disseminates premium rate information and develops uniform contracts of insurance, actions that in nearly every other industry would be found to be anti-competitive conduct. (There are valid policy reasons why the insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust laws.)

For many years, AT&T was a monopoly...then, in the 1980s it was broken up. It was allowed to be a monopoly in part because its monopoly meant it could develop the best communications system in the world. There was a tradeoff: it was a controlled monopoly by government regulation. Each state had some form of public utilities commission which regulated rate increases etc. Often government issued licenses are a little monopolistic: in many states, communities can have a "local option" for issuing liquor licenses. That usually means the community is the only source for purchasing liquor. Bars in such communities have to buy from the city. An example: Brookings, SD has a municipally-owned liquor store (let me tell you...think about the revenue that brings in! There are many other examples of monopolies that exist and some are the government itself. My point: not every monopoly is prohibited and some are encouraged and protected. Some for-profit businesses may be actual monopolies due to the weird market. Example: in a given community there may be one company that cleans septic tanks.** They can charge just about what they want because no one else is doing it in the particular community. A monopoly? Yes. Violative of anti-trust laws? Probably not.

So, I read about taking a shot at the NCAA based on anti-trust laws etc. Has that happened before? (Someone has to be first, right?) I have a hard time following the claims that the NCAA has somehow stepped over the anti-trust line or that the anti-trust rules even apply. Again, I'm not an expert on anti-trust issues but some speak/write with great confidence that the NCAA may have trouble with anti-trust claims and I'd like to see an explanation of that based on the Sherman and Clayton acts (and comparable state laws), the main laws on which such claims are based.

** favorite slogans of a local septic tank servicing company: "We're number 1 in the number 2 business" and "Satisfaction guaranteed or double your load back."

[gjw007]

Lets assume the NCAA is a monopoly. Is it proscribed by the anti-trust laws? That's the question. Not all monopolies are prohibited. For example, Major League Baseball has some exemptions. While not a 'monopoly', another example of an industry that is exempt from anti-trust laws is the insurance industry ... the Insurance Services Organization routinely disseminates premium rate information and develops uniform contracts of insurance, actions that in nearly every other industry would be found to be anti-competitive conduct. (There are valid policy reasons why the insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust laws.)

For many years, AT&T was a monopoly...then, in the 1980s it was broken up. It was allowed to be a monopoly in part because its monopoly meant it could develop the best communications system in the world. There was a tradeoff: it was a controlled monopoly by government regulation. Each state had some form of public utilities commission which regulated rate increases etc. Often government issued licenses are a little monopolistic: in many states, communities can have a "local option" for issuing liquor licenses. That usually means the community is the only source for purchasing liquor. Bars in such communities have to buy from the city. An example: Brookings, SD has a municipally-owned liquor store (let me tell you...think about the revenue that brings in! There are many other examples of monopolies that exist and some are the government itself. My point: not every monopoly is prohibited and some are encouraged and protected. Some for-profit businesses may be actual monopolies due to the weird market. Example: in a given community there may be one company that cleans septic tanks.** They can charge just about what they want because no one else is doing it in the particular community. A monopoly? Yes. Violative of anti-trust laws? Probably not.

So, I read about taking a shot at the NCAA based on anti-trust laws etc. Has that happened before? (Someone has to be first, right?) I have a hard time following the claims that the NCAA has somehow stepped over the anti-trust line or that the anti-trust rules even apply. Again, I'm not an expert on anti-trust issues but some speak/write with great confidence that the NCAA may have trouble with anti-trust claims and I'd like to see an explanation of that based on the Sherman and Clayton acts (and comparable state laws), the main laws on which such claims are based.

** favorite slogans of a local septic tank servicing company: "We're number 1 in the number 2 business" and "Satisfaction guaranteed or double your load back."

The question of whether it is a monopoly is the question of harm and some entities, such as the telephone companies were allowed to be monopolies. In the telephone case, it actually benefited the rural consumers as the cost of bringing telephones to low density areas was not something that is in best interest of the company due to the costs involved. All things being equal, they would have preferred to have build up the urban areas and not deal with the rural areas. So, yes, monopolies are sometimes allowed (even in commercial areas not just non-profits) but the overriding is concern for the public and the harm caused by the monopoly. For UND, it probably could be quantified by the cost of losing the ability to host a game and a harder to quantify impact on the denial of using their logo (name recognition) in tournament play but overall, is the NCAA monopoly in the best interest of the public or not?

[almostheavenin2011]

There once was a little Yorkie (North Dakota/UND) who kept nipping at the pit bull's (NCAA) cajones. One day the pit bull will get very annoyed with the Yorkie and CHOMP! Who do you really think will win? The little yapping Yorkie or the pit bull? I know who I would put money on.

[The Sicatoka]

Lets assume the NCAA is a monopoly.

I'd rather prove it's a public actor.

[Goon]

** favorite slogans of a local septic tank servicing company: "We're number 1 in the number 2 business" and "Satisfaction guaranteed or double your load back."

That is a funny slogan...

[FSSD]

I found this to be a interesting read.. it does talk about the NCAA and it does not view it as a monopoly.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/journals/rrgc/issues/RRGC_9_135_cummings_Harper.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court opined that colleges and universities

have alternatives to joining the NCAA when it announced its decision

in Natl Collegiate Athletic Assn v. Tarkanian in 1988.139 Coach Jerry

Tarkanian, former mens basketball coach for the University of

Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), argued that the NCAAs power was so

overwhelming that university administrations were left with no other

choice than to comply with NCAA regulations, including those that

deprive parties of constitutionally protected rights.140 Justice John Paul

Stevens, in announcing the Courts majority holding, declared that

[t]he Universitys desire to remain a powerhouse among the nations

college basketball teams is understandable and non-membership in the

NCAA obviously would thwart that goal. But that UNLVs options

were unpalatable does not mean that they were nonexistent.141 At

bottom, the Tarkanian case cemented the nearly unfettered power of

the NCAA when it held that the NCAA, as a voluntary, private

membership organization did not have to comply with due process and

other constitutional requisites when dealing with its voluntary

membership institutions.

[FSSD]

I found this to be an interesting read.. it does talk about the NCAA and it does not view it as a monopoly.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/journals/rrgc/issues/RRGC_9_135_cummings_Harper.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court opined that colleges and universities

have alternatives to joining the NCAA when it announced its decision

in Natl Collegiate Athletic Assn v. Tarkanian in 1988.139 Coach Jerry

Tarkanian, former mens basketball coach for the University of

Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), argued that the NCAAs power was so

overwhelming that university administrations were left with no other

choice than to comply with NCAA regulations, including those that

deprive parties of constitutionally protected rights.140 Justice John Paul

Stevens, in announcing the Courts majority holding, declared that

[t]he Universitys desire to remain a powerhouse among the nations

college basketball teams is understandable and non-membership in the

NCAA obviously would thwart that goal. But that UNLVs options

were unpalatable does not mean that they were nonexistent.141 At

bottom, the Tarkanian case cemented the nearly unfettered power of

the NCAA when it held that the NCAA, as a voluntary, private

membership organization did not have to comply with due process and

other constitutional requisites when dealing with its voluntary

membership institutions.

Sorry about replying to my own post, but I do think it is ironic that one of authors is from the University of Iowa and looking at the origin of the word "Hawkeye". If you go the University of Iowa website you get:

The term "Hawkeye" originally appeared in the book, The Last of the Mohicans, and was later used in its plural form to describe the people of Iowa. Soon thereafter, the University of Iowa borrowed this nickname for its athletic teams.

Look at it a bit more and you get this:

the 29th state, known as the hawkeye state, is named as a tribute to chief Black Hawk, leader of the Sac Indians, who after the tribes unsuccessful fight against the white settlers, were relocated to Iowa, a state named from the iowa river, after the ioway indians

Plus, you have University of Iowas strong stance on NA nicknames. Do you think the school might be running from something and do not get me started on Sooners and what this represents in US History.

[The Sicatoka]

... the University of Iowa and looking at the origin of the word "Hawkeye".

The name Iowa is based off the Kiowa tribe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiowa

[HowBoutThemBison?]

Sorry about replying to my own post, but I do think it is ironic that one of authors is from the University of Iowa and looking at the origin of the word "Hawkeye". If you go the University of Iowa website you get:

The term "Hawkeye" originally appeared in the book, The Last of the Mohicans, and was later used in its plural form to describe the people of Iowa. Soon thereafter, the University of Iowa borrowed this nickname for its athletic teams.

Look at it a bit more and you get this:

the 29th state, known as the hawkeye state, is named as a tribute to chief Black Hawk, leader of the Sac Indians, who after the tribes unsuccessful fight against the white settlers, were relocated to Iowa, a state named from the iowa river, after the ioway indians

Plus, you have University of Iowa

[bisonh8er]

This is kind of off topic but to an extent it does have some of the same NA issues. Apparently the Indian Affairs Committee is upset with the fact that the government used the code name Geronimo for Bin Laden. I actually laughed when I read the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden_geronimo

Again I am not posting this for any political agenda, just simply pointing out another NA leader/ tribe upset with their names being used. I think this is getting out of hand.

"These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating," Tuell said.

"Apparently, having an African-American president in the White House is not enough to overturn the more than 200-year American tradition of treating and thinking of Indians as enemies of the United States," Newcomb wrote.

"It's another attempt to label Native Americans as terrorists," said Paula Antoine of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.

Gimme a break.

[petey23]

This is kind of off topic but to an extent it does have some of the same NA issues. Apparently the Indian Affairs Committee is upset with the fact that the government used the code name Geronimo for Bin Laden. I actually laughed when I read the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden_geronimo

"It's another attempt to label Native Americans as terrorists," said Paula Antoine of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.

Gimme a break.

Another Attempt?

[ScottM]

"It's another attempt to label Native Americans as terrorists," said Paula Antoine of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.

And your mindset is another example of the self-pity and self-victimization that keeps so many NAs living in third world squalor. Good luck with that.

[HowBoutThemBison?]

Another Attempt?

I wasn't aware they had been labeled as anything close to a terrorist in around 125 years...

[dagies]

I would guess the Geronimo nickname has more to do with how he has evaded capture for a very long time and less with the whole "enemy of the state" thing. Perspective, please.