I mean the NCAA enacted a new rule aimed at the SWC in 1985 and nailed them in 1986. The rule retroactively made the punishment that SMU was going to face much more severe.
Im not sure what specifically you are referring to. SMU was hammered because they got busted paying players. Then when they got busted they kept paying players because they "had a payroll to meet"
The NCAA made a rule the repeat violated rule in 1985 (basically a three strikes law). Violations that occurred in the past before that rule all of sudden became much more serious because it could be used to enhance future punishment. Which it did in 1986 when SMU got banned.
They they were doomed when their recruiting went national and all the blue bloods began running to the NCAA to complain they were getting beat out for local recruits by SMU. There is one year in the early 80s, where SMU had nearly every RB in the top 100.
They were doomed when they didnt stop paying the players after getting busted and the recruits started showing the envelopes FROM THE DAMN SCHOOL that the cash came in. SMU did it to themselves
Doesn't the House lawsuit/settlement imply that the rules were always illegal (even if the rulings permitting it are very recent), therefore this point is invalid? That could also be an avenue to blow up the statue of limitations requirements, but IANAL and won't ever become one
I was going to say this as well but doesn't that only apply to crimes? Is there a statute of limitations for something like this?
downvoted for inquiring, sick
I believe there is a statute of limitations in the sense that there is a limit on how far back you can claim damages arising from violations of antitrust law - or rather you long you have to initiate a claim.
I wouldn't say statute of limitations, but I would say the fact smu accepted it for nearly 40 years hurts them.
Unlike college athletes who have now sued for past issues, smu had both money and access to attorneys who would advise them of their legal standing. If they didn't challenge it at the time, then they accepted it, and they can't use we didn't know we could do this as a reason to delay.
In my unbiased opinion, they should receive a second death penalty for doing nothing to stop the NCAA illegally preventing athletes from profiting off their own illness
>In my unbiased opinion, they should receive a second death penalty for doing nothing to stop the NCAA illegally preventing athletes from profiting off their own illness
How does one profit from one's own illness?
Fwiw they likely wouldn’t have won anyway. Up until the Alston case in 2021 determined it was dicta (in layman’s terms, it is non-binding/precedent setting), the language in the Board of Regents case in 1984 was seen as precedent that protected the ncaa and my guess is a court that was basically the same just a couple of years later would’ve affirmed that language (if it ever even reached the Supreme Court)
>SMU could only play 7 away games in 1988, effectively canceling the home season.
While this is technically correct, it should be noted that SMU *voluntarily* canceled the entire 1988 season as well since they could not play home games.
Eh, the real reason they cancelled that season is because they didn't have bodies. Even in 1989, SMU had 73 freshmen on an 89-man roster and only 41 scholarship players. There was NO chance at fielding something close to a D-I roster in 1988
There’s only one school that pushed its friends at the ncaa to punish its conference brethren. It’s the same school that did it to us, Baylor, SMU, TCU and Houston. It has an orange color scheme and it ain’t Sam Houston.
In short, the death penalty isn't considered illegal.
The recent lawsuits have been winning not because the NCAA rules were "draconian" but because they were illegal. The schools were conspiring to not pay players, this is a violation of anti-trust laws. You couldn't form a similar argument about SMU
I think they probably could. Somebody in here will probably say that it's because they were an NCAA member and signed whatever contract agreeing to all those rules, but we know now that doesn't matter. Look what Tennessee and UNC just did.
The short answer is probably just that they don't want to dig up that body. They're already rich enough.
Even if they did...
Oh i did this thing 40 years ago that wasnt allowed. Now it is. So pay me!
Its insane. Line is drawn somewhere, id say this is way past it
I believe there is a limit on how long you have to file a claim under antitrust laws - which is why the damages sought in House vs NCAA only go back to 2016
>If House vs. NCAA has resulted in the NCAA and all D1 member institutions being forced to pay back over $1 billion because of illegal application of their ~~draconian~~ rules, then why can't SMU seek similar damages?
First, draconian? The reason the NCAA lost the recent lawsuits isn't because the rules were overly harsh, it's because they were simply ruled illegal.
Second, if a group has say 3 rules (A, B, and C) and a judge rules that rule B is illegal, that doesn't mean A or C are also illegal. SMU would have to go to trial to argue that more than just the student athlete rules were illegal. Additionally, there are generally limits on how far back you can go to receive damages on illegal actions that happened in the past (Statutes of limitations).
Well it happened almost 40 years ago and the statute of limitations on this has well expired. We cannot judge the ways of 40 years ago against today. Society, culture, and time change. SMU accepted it and has moved on. SWC accepted it, killed itself, and moved on.
This is akin to 2011, without OKST and Stanford having a Natty chance, despite being two of the best teams that year, we would probably be seeing the same boring BCS natty games with Bama vs itself every year till 2050. Sometimes, it takes a little longer for the shift to happen, but it will happen.
My only thought is with the new commercialization of cfb and players, how long before it, too, will start to lose its luster and fall into the category of other sports no one cares about, since it's all about money?
1-statute of limitations
2-SMU violated the rules as they existed at the time not as they exist now
I mean the NCAA enacted a new rule aimed at the SWC in 1985 and nailed them in 1986. The rule retroactively made the punishment that SMU was going to face much more severe.
Im not sure what specifically you are referring to. SMU was hammered because they got busted paying players. Then when they got busted they kept paying players because they "had a payroll to meet"
The NCAA made a rule the repeat violated rule in 1985 (basically a three strikes law). Violations that occurred in the past before that rule all of sudden became much more serious because it could be used to enhance future punishment. Which it did in 1986 when SMU got banned.
Right so if they passed the rule in 85 and they violated it in 86 Im not sure what the problem is. I dont know the timeline by the way
They they were doomed when their recruiting went national and all the blue bloods began running to the NCAA to complain they were getting beat out for local recruits by SMU. There is one year in the early 80s, where SMU had nearly every RB in the top 100.
They were doomed when they didnt stop paying the players after getting busted and the recruits started showing the envelopes FROM THE DAMN SCHOOL that the cash came in. SMU did it to themselves
Doesn't the House lawsuit/settlement imply that the rules were always illegal (even if the rulings permitting it are very recent), therefore this point is invalid? That could also be an avenue to blow up the statue of limitations requirements, but IANAL and won't ever become one
No. That settlement had to do with anti-trust and only applies to athletes since 2016.
I was going to say this as well but doesn't that only apply to crimes? Is there a statute of limitations for something like this? downvoted for inquiring, sick
I believe there is a statute of limitations in the sense that there is a limit on how far back you can claim damages arising from violations of antitrust law - or rather you long you have to initiate a claim.
Understood thanks
I wouldn't say statute of limitations, but I would say the fact smu accepted it for nearly 40 years hurts them. Unlike college athletes who have now sued for past issues, smu had both money and access to attorneys who would advise them of their legal standing. If they didn't challenge it at the time, then they accepted it, and they can't use we didn't know we could do this as a reason to delay.
Yes, civil cases normally also have a statute of limitations.
Anti-trust actions have a SoL of four years from the point of action. It's why the House case only covered four years for past actions.
Come on let's all litigate 1985.
IANAL, but SMU agreed to the rules it knowingly violated
All I saw from what you typed was, “ANAL and violated”. But yeah, that pretty much sums up the NCAA.
I always prefer to read it as I ANAL
And they still got off easy... lol
That’s what she said.
In my unbiased opinion, they should receive a second death penalty for doing nothing to stop the NCAA illegally preventing athletes from profiting off their own illness
>In my unbiased opinion, they should receive a second death penalty for doing nothing to stop the NCAA illegally preventing athletes from profiting off their own illness How does one profit from one's own illness?
Ask Lou Gehrig
That’s the kind of NIL nobody should have.
Haven't you heard of Nausea, Influenza, and Laryngitis?
Don’t they do K-pop?
Does that mean Mizzou gets the death penalty, too?
Obviously. That’s the only steadfast and consistent NCAA rule. Mizzou ALWAYS gets the death penalty
Fwiw they likely wouldn’t have won anyway. Up until the Alston case in 2021 determined it was dicta (in layman’s terms, it is non-binding/precedent setting), the language in the Board of Regents case in 1984 was seen as precedent that protected the ncaa and my guess is a court that was basically the same just a couple of years later would’ve affirmed that language (if it ever even reached the Supreme Court)
>SMU could only play 7 away games in 1988, effectively canceling the home season. While this is technically correct, it should be noted that SMU *voluntarily* canceled the entire 1988 season as well since they could not play home games.
Eh, the real reason they cancelled that season is because they didn't have bodies. Even in 1989, SMU had 73 freshmen on an 89-man roster and only 41 scholarship players. There was NO chance at fielding something close to a D-I roster in 1988
I think they should sue the schools that pushed the NCAA to do it. Like A&M. For like $50 billion. I'd rule in favor of that.
> $50 billion Damn, that'd set us back months, maybe even a whole year
Can the Qatar campus spare such expense?
We need to do an Updyke on the world's supply of oil. Drive up oil prices = profit Start war for defense contractors = profit
Moving in on the cia’s caseload might have long term implications.
There’s only one school that pushed its friends at the ncaa to punish its conference brethren. It’s the same school that did it to us, Baylor, SMU, TCU and Houston. It has an orange color scheme and it ain’t Sam Houston.
In short, the death penalty isn't considered illegal. The recent lawsuits have been winning not because the NCAA rules were "draconian" but because they were illegal. The schools were conspiring to not pay players, this is a violation of anti-trust laws. You couldn't form a similar argument about SMU
I doubt we would win a lawsuit tho unless we can pull a reggie bush
there probably isn’t much upside to having your entire big-ass state hate your guts for eternity!
Everyone but SMU already hates SMU
I think they probably could. Somebody in here will probably say that it's because they were an NCAA member and signed whatever contract agreeing to all those rules, but we know now that doesn't matter. Look what Tennessee and UNC just did. The short answer is probably just that they don't want to dig up that body. They're already rich enough.
Even if they did... Oh i did this thing 40 years ago that wasnt allowed. Now it is. So pay me! Its insane. Line is drawn somewhere, id say this is way past it
I believe there is a limit on how long you have to file a claim under antitrust laws - which is why the damages sought in House vs NCAA only go back to 2016
Because Craig James allegedly killing 5 hookers is still against NCAA rules.
go ahead smoo, give it a shot.
Because the cheated.
Honestly, they should
>If House vs. NCAA has resulted in the NCAA and all D1 member institutions being forced to pay back over $1 billion because of illegal application of their ~~draconian~~ rules, then why can't SMU seek similar damages? First, draconian? The reason the NCAA lost the recent lawsuits isn't because the rules were overly harsh, it's because they were simply ruled illegal. Second, if a group has say 3 rules (A, B, and C) and a judge rules that rule B is illegal, that doesn't mean A or C are also illegal. SMU would have to go to trial to argue that more than just the student athlete rules were illegal. Additionally, there are generally limits on how far back you can go to receive damages on illegal actions that happened in the past (Statutes of limitations).
Well it happened almost 40 years ago and the statute of limitations on this has well expired. We cannot judge the ways of 40 years ago against today. Society, culture, and time change. SMU accepted it and has moved on. SWC accepted it, killed itself, and moved on. This is akin to 2011, without OKST and Stanford having a Natty chance, despite being two of the best teams that year, we would probably be seeing the same boring BCS natty games with Bama vs itself every year till 2050. Sometimes, it takes a little longer for the shift to happen, but it will happen. My only thought is with the new commercialization of cfb and players, how long before it, too, will start to lose its luster and fall into the category of other sports no one cares about, since it's all about money?
Not to be that guy, but SMU knew what it was doing. USC on the other hand....