Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8331
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 11:38 AM - Post#353466
In response to LocalTiger
They are all missing the point. The fact that all Ivy prices (at retail - along with the well-endowed smaller schools) all move their tuition/fees/boarding rates pretty much in unison is the very definition of price fixing. OTOH, The legal argument for forcing merit schollies completely evades me; athletic or otherwise.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21300
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-08-23 11:40 AM - Post#353467
In response to LocalTiger
Excellent article for a non-lawyer like myself.
As a sociologist, I see any number of legitimate complaints here. The existing policies clearly favor legacies who have a much easier time of getting admitted in the first place and, everything being equal, are able to afford it regardless of how much money, if any, is awarded to them.
Edited by penn nation on 03-08-23 11:41 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8331
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-08-23 12:39 PM - Post#353474
In response to penn nation
As a sociologist, I see any number of legitimate complaints here. The existing policies clearly favor legacies who have a much easier time of getting admitted in the first place and, everything being equal, are able to afford it regardless of how much money, if any, is awarded to them.
Keep in mind, one needs to apply ED to get legacy preference. The whole ED system is also suspect ethically, and perhaps legally; but I do not see how relevant this is to the athletic/merit scholarship issue.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1892
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 07:49 PM - Post#353503
In response to Streamers
You can hate legacy admissions or believe in them but I don’t see how that has anything to do with athletic scholarships. And the Ivies’ financial aid packages are really strong, which makes me wonder how much the plaintiffs’ Brown educations cost them. I paid way under sticker price for both of my kid’s college educations. One went to a “Top-20” university in the Midwest and received a substantial merit-based scholarship. The other is at an Ivy with generous need-based aid (we are paying even less for him than child #1 despite a household income that puts us in 90+% of US household income). Both educations cost us less than in-state tuition would have been to Rutgers.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 437
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-08-23 09:44 PM - Post#353516
In response to TigerFan
All true, but full scholarships plus cost of attendance payments will beat financial aid every day of the week. I believe the cost of attendance checks can be as high as $4k/semester now, which is not nothing.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4919
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-09-23 12:13 AM - Post#353531
In response to CM
I would just say that the more-advanced understanding of law and economics generated by Williamson, Klein, Crawford, Alchian, Demsetz, etc. insists that non-standard contractual arrangements are not to be written off as per se abuses of market power. My guess is that the institutional equilibrium for an IL that had athletic scholarships required would be a drop to Division III or some other way to circumvent the requirement.
What I don't see is how the plaintiff's argument wouldn't also make DIII illegal as a price-fixing conspiracy.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8331
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-09-23 12:14 AM - Post#353532
In response to TigerFan
I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about financial aid, but the Ivies definition of ‘need’ has some serious flaws. Merit based aid available at other quality schools often becomes a necessity for many families who would otherwise qualify for Ivy admission. I congratulate you for navigating that maze successfully.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 437
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-09-23 08:17 AM - Post#353550
In response to SRP
This was where I landed as well - you don't have to have scholarships, but you do if you want to remain D1.
I've been saying for some time, with the covid season cancellation being the most egregious example, that the IL has been treating its athletes like D3 anyway, while trumpeting them as D1.
|
digamma
Masters Student
Posts: 468
Loc: Minneapolis
Reg: 11-27-11
|
03-09-23 03:57 PM - Post#353584
In response to CM
Wouldn't the same theory also apply to scholarship limits by sport at D-1? I mean everyone is agreeing to only give 11.7 baseball scholarships, or whatever it is.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3619
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-09-23 04:17 PM - Post#353586
In response to digamma
Hey guys, let's not poo poo legacy admissions just yet. My kids are 5 and 1, so I need those advantages to be around a bit longer, lol
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 437
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-09-23 06:39 PM - Post#353600
In response to digamma
I don't know the details of legal basis of the suit, but from my understanding it would be more like if one school offered 3 full scholarships and another 15. I believe there are agreements in place as to the total number of scholarships a school can offer per sport.
|
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts: 440
Age: 58
Reg: 11-15-17
|
03-09-23 06:53 PM - Post#353602
In response to CM
There is a difference between rules imposed by a governing body
(the NCAA), and agreements reached among competitors
(the Ivy Leagueschools).
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 437
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-09-23 07:01 PM - Post#353604
In response to LocalTiger
Indeed. This is why I'm just speculating and admit my ignorance on the legal basis of this.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4919
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-09-23 07:48 PM - Post#353607
In response to CM
The distinction between a "governing body" and a group of schools is ridiculous. The IL is as much a governing body as any other conference with rules.
And to CM, I don't see how DIII itself would be legal under the claimed doctrine of the lawsuit.
In fact, no agreement among competitors (in any sporting arena)that limited the resources used could stand up. Standardization of engines in auto racing would unfairly affect the vendors of other engines. Restrictions on roster size limit opportunities. And on and on.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1892
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-09-23 07:52 PM - Post#353609
In response to CM
Would the same legal arguments hold for non-athletic, merit scholarships? Performing artists? mathematicians? Etc? The schools compete for talent of all sorts and I don’t believe any provide merit-based scholarships for any of these talents. What am I missing?
|
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts: 440
Age: 58
Reg: 11-15-17
|
03-09-23 08:39 PM - Post#353614
In response to TigerFan
SRP, are you aware of other conferences with rules restricting
scholarships beyond NCAA limitations. The Patriot League used to, but no more.
as a general matter, antitrust law is concerned with agreements
among competitors: it does not scrutinize rules imposed by
a central authority.
You may think that is ridiculous, but that is antitrust law.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2144
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-09-23 08:41 PM - Post#353615
In response to SRP
The distinction between a "governing body" and a group of schools is ridiculous. The IL is as much a governing body as any other conference with rules.
And to CM, I don't see how DIII itself would be legal under the claimed doctrine of the lawsuit.
In fact, no agreement among competitors (in any sporting arena)that limited the resources used could stand up. Standardization of engines in auto racing would unfairly affect the vendors of other engines. Restrictions on roster size limit opportunities. And on and on.
Formula 1 has a standard powerplant configuration. Each supplier (Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda (Red Bull) and Renault) must conform to the standard, but each has the latitude to determine how best to do so.
Edited by weinhauers_ghost on 03-09-23 08:42 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1349
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-09-23 09:31 PM - Post#353617
In response to LocalTiger
There is a difference between rules imposed by a governing body
(the NCAA), and agreements reached among competitors
(the Ivy Leagueschools).
I do not believe that is true under the 2021 Supreme Court NIL case (NCAA v. Alston):
"On June 21, 2021, in NCAA v. Alston, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) rules limiting education-related compensation that colleges and universities can provide to student-athletes violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Slip Op. 20-512 (June 21, 2021). In the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court affirmed that the NCAA is not exempt from the antitrust laws, in the process sending a shot across the bow of colleges and universities (and other not-for-profit entities), stating, “[T]o the extent [the NCAA proposes] a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of the Sherman Act for its restraints of trade – that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports[] and money – we cannot agree.”
Making this an unusual antitrust case, the parties did not challenge the district court’s definition of the relevant market and they did not dispute that the NCAA enjoys monopsony power in that market (nor was there any argument that the plaintiffs had to show more than harm in just the labor market – for example, harm to the consumer market for college sports). There was no question that the NCAA member schools competed for student-athletes, and there was no dispute that the NCAA’s restrictions decreased the compensation that student-athletes would otherwise receive but for those rules (and that such decreases in compensation drove down participation in the relevant labor market). Justice Gorsuch succinctly captured these unique areas of agreement, observing that “this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control.”
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-cou rt-ho...
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4919
Reg: 02-04-06
|
Re: Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-10-23 04:29 AM - Post#353626
In response to weinhauers_ghost
Yes, different racing leagues have rules that in different ways restrain trade. F2 and F3 have standard engines that everyone must use, done explicitly to limit what can be paid to engine designers and manufacturers. Other leagues have other rules aimed at reducing participants’ expenditures on equipment. By the strict logic that done of the justices seem to embrace, these would be illegal collusive restraints on trade.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32891
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-10-23 08:28 AM - Post#353628
In response to SRP
Harking back to my original criticism of the suit, I am certain the Ivies WILL challenge the limitation of the suit's relevant market to the Ivies as well as the allegation that the League's schools' agreement to give only need-based aid constitutes the per se violation of "price fixing". When one reads Justice Gorsuch's words, I don't see this case fitting within the same parameters at all.
As an aside, 7 of the 9 Justices went to Ivy League schools as undergraduates and only Barrett didn't go to either Harvard or Yale Law Schools. Query whether that might have an ultimate impact.
|
