<![CDATA[How do you know when the NCAA is lying?]]>

<![CDATA[How do you know when the NCAA is lying?]]>When it’s on the subject of doing it for the kids, of course.

The NCAA believes students should have a choice of attending college or playing professionally. The NCAA never had a rule preventing this.

— NCAA (@NCAA) February 22, 2019

The @NCAA is being intentionally misleading. In 2003 or 2004, the #NCAA filed an amicus brief in Clarett v. NFL favoring age rules and opposing a player's right to turn pro early. The brief is on file with the federal courts in New York. You can read it. #LyingOnlyMakesItWorse https://t.co/2k86dUmluE

— Marc Edelman (@MarcEdelman) February 23, 2019

Intentionally misleading? Why, I never.

**********************************************************************

UPDATE:

Here is a link to it https://t.co/OigOjU4No2

— Andy Schwarz (@andyhre) February 23, 2019

The NCAA’S legal interest is in immunizing eligibility rules from antitrust challenge. The NCAA, like the defendant-appellant National Football League (the “NFL”), adopts rules and regulations governing athletic competition between its member institutions. The district court’s fundamental misapplication Of the antitrust laws to the NFL’s eligibility rule may, if followed, have sweeping adverse consequences for all league sports governing bodies, including the NCAA. If allowed to stand, the district court’s ruling could impede any such sports league governing body from adopting eligibility rules, which would undermine each association’s definition of its unique model of competitive athletics.

Tl;dr version: letting the NFL sign football players regardless of age would screw with our business model.

]]>