If NIL was forced by the courts, could Smith suspension not be litigated?

I honestly can't understand how the NCAA can force him to miss the 1st game. Anytime anyone has been suspended, the coaches have always been able to select what game to sit the player. Doesn't seem to be a precedent for them to make LSU sit him for that game. Just that he's supposed to sit one game.

If it was a last year issue and he couldn't be suspended, because he was.ouy all year.... maybe it carrie to the next year's first game of the season w/o any LSU say so.

But just chauk it up as a life lesson.

quote:

---

I’d imagine the case would be pretty strong that the ncaa can’t punish athletes for NIL activities that took place after the pertinent SCOTUS ruling(s).

---

So, do you really think that LSU, the Athletic Dept. and LSU's lawyers have not had discussion on this issue of the NCAA mandated suspension of Smith. You had better believe that if there was a legal leg to stand on the issue would have already been put in front of a judge.

Now to address the blatant and wide-spread misunderstanding of the ruling in Alston (pay attention to the lines that are in bold):

The following is directly quoted from the Harvard Law Review analysis of the case NCAA v Alston in the very first paragraph:

"in NCAA v. Alston,
5. 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021).
the Supreme Court upheld a district court ruling that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules limiting education-related compensation violated section 1 of the Sherman Act.
6. See id. at 2151–52, 2166.
Shortly after the Court’s decision, the NCAA voted of its own accord to allow a student athlete to receive compensation in exchange for use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL).
7. The Alston holding did not compel the NCAA’s NIL decision because the ruling left the NCAA’s rules limiting compensation unrelated to education undisturbed. See id. at 2165.
Even after this series of changes, the NCAA still restricts the compensation that schools can provide directly to their athletes unrelated to education."

Alston case had nothing to do with NIL, the ruling in Alston was pertaining to the NCAA limiting education related compensation. Now, the NCAA saw the writing on the wall and passed their own NIL rules with an effective date. Any violation of the rules prior to the effective date of the New (at the time) NIL rules would still be a violation of the rules that were in effect at the time of said violation.

As a courtesy, below is a link to the Harvard Law Review of the Alston Decision for your reading pleasure.

HLR Alston Analysis

Like baseball there should be an appeal process where players can continue to play while this is pending

I would argue he missed a whole season last year and that should count.
He signed autographs for money over 2 years ago and two weeks later the NCAA said it was legal. They wait 2 years to suspend him when he had to sit out all last year. fricking criminal and they should fight it.

If the Court ruled it unconstitutional to prevent citizens from profiting from their talents, how can the NCAA punish them from marketing themselves.

quote:

---

I would argue he missed a whole season last year and that should count.

---

Why? Make your case.

quote:

---

He signed autographs for money over 2 years ago and two weeks later the NCAA said it was legal. They wait 2 years to suspend him when he had to sit out all last year. fricking criminal and they should fight it.

---

And lose.

When was the NCAA informed of this violation of the rules? Some time during the 2022 season. NCAA investigates and issues a ruling of one game suspension for the two players. Boutte is suspended for a game immediately. But, by this point in time Smith is out for the year after having ACL surgery. Suspension is still outstanding until he can play and sit his NCAA mandated suspension.

Take it easy Mr Dershowitz. I’m not trying the case. I’m just trying to put some common sense context to it.

quote:

---

just trying to put some common sense context to it.

---

:rotflmao: Now that is laughable.

Yep. I’m funny that way.