WSJ article: Wild Legal Theory to Save Jim Harbaugh

Submitted by indi_blue on November 15th, 2023 at 1:53 PM

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/michigan-jim-harbaugh-suspension-sign-stealing-law-a775f60b

"After Crane’s beloved Wolverines drew the wrath of the college sports world, Crane cooked up a novel theory in their defense. In perhaps the spiciest piece ever to hit the Yale Journal on Regulation, Crane argued that the NCAA bylaw Michigan is accused of violating may be unenforceable—because it violates antitrust law. "

He argues that that it violates anti-trust law

 

"Crane argues that the reasoning for that restriction is what’s key: it was implemented in 1994 as a cost-cutting measure, one that would prevent big-time programs from spending on something that smaller ones couldn’t afford. Crane says that’s the precise type of financial restriction that courts—and the Justice Department—have been skeptical of upholding. 

“Once you understand this as an economic rule, as opposed to a rule of the game, that raises antitrust issues,” Crane says. “Certainly if this were ever challenged, the NCAA and the Big Ten would have arguments. The problem with those arguments as I understand them so far is that they would be about competitive balance.” 

“How is this different from, say, the limits on player compensation?” he adds. “Once you frame it as, it’s not a rule of the game, it’s not about the integrity of the game, it’s about the economics of different colleges spending more or less money, I’m not sure that the distinction can be made.”"

 

In the end he writes that, entire article is worth a read

“My post about the antitrust implications of enforcing NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1 wasn’t a joke,” he wrote. 

MGoBoard
Football

MGoGrendel

November 15th, 2023 at 3:40 PM ^

I missed it as well when first posted.

If anyone cares to elaborate... I'm wondering of the NCAA took a look at our Wild Stallions mess and said "pass" due to what they know was a financial - not player safety/competitive balance issue.

And, is this approach something that my be thrown into the Michigan defense this Friday?

Joined: 01/21/2013

MGoPoints: 70271

lilpenny1316

November 15th, 2023 at 1:59 PM ^

The problem is that all the schools have abided by the same rule for almost 30 years. They might be able to get the rule thrown out, but I don't think that would help retroactively.

Joined: 11/19/2009

MGoPoints: 61836

Hemlock Philosopher

November 15th, 2023 at 1:59 PM ^

It's really not a "wild theory", nor will it "save" Harbaugh. Its a solid legal argument that will probably be a part of changing these weird NCAA rules as courts get more and more involved. Also, Harbaugh really had nothing to do with this. 

Joined: 02/12/2009

MGoPoints: 9421

glewe

November 15th, 2023 at 2:00 PM ^

Expect it to be raised after final discipline by NCAA if they do anything beyond what Michigan is willing to accept. Look for vacated wins, scholarship revocations, or onerous suspensions (beyond garbage games) that would trigger Michigan to pursue litigation. There's certainly a cogent argument to be made. 

As far as B1G discipline, I don't think this will matter except to strengthen the argument that B1G jumped the gun on an incomplete record. 

Joined: 08/25/2010

MGoPoints: -7293

mgobleu

November 15th, 2023 at 3:31 PM ^

I can play the conspiracy theory game too.

Mel Tucker has a generational running back fall ass-backward through the portal and into his lap, earning him a RIDICULOUS contract he had no business getting.

Running back gets drafted and Tucker is exposed, burning up all his good graces with the university.

Tucker hires a consultant and sex assault survivor to talk to his players about...sexual assault. Tucker starts relationship with this consultant, and proceeds to jerk off while on a phone call with her. 

Tucker loses his job and one of the biggest paychecks in all of college football for tugging his turnip. 

 

Oh shit; wait that all happened. Sorry. 

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 38428

turtleboy

November 15th, 2023 at 10:16 PM ^

Sparty fans actually believe we're the cheatingest program in history. They're deranged, and they've completely erased their entire sordid history from their memories. Mental. Don't even bother going down the rabbit hole they've infested.

Joined: 04/22/2011

MGoPoints: 35131

darko

November 15th, 2023 at 2:05 PM ^

Interesting.  I'm sure they will try any and all arguments with the NCAA.

This doesnt actually address the BigTen's "sportsmanship" suspension though.  Which brings up another argument.  The BigTen got around the 2 game suspension limit for Harbaugh by claiming they werent actually suspending him, they were suspending the "head coach" and defacto face of the institution.  Some posters brought up the loop hole of well, then lets make Jim the OC or special assistant or something and make a scapegoat the HC. Suspend that fake HC, and Jim can be interim.  Sounds ridiculous, as it is.

BUT, what if we push that argument in front of the judge on Friday.  Have the lawyers ask the BigTen if Jim Harbaugh is not the target of the suspension (according to BigTen), then would he be able to coach and be with the team if he was not the head coach?  If they say no, then you have them admitting that the suspension is actually for Jim Harbaugh, not a phantom entity called the head coach.  If they admit that, then the suspension is against the BigTen bylaws and should be thrown out.  If they say that Jim would be eligible to be with the team if he was not the head coach, then call their bluff and make that happen and then after the 3 game suspension, give him the new contract you are planning to anyway

Joined: 01/10/2011

MGoPoints: 674

MarthaCook1977

November 15th, 2023 at 2:51 PM ^

I think it’s clear, despite the Big Ten’s rhetoric and illogical conflation of Harbaugh and UM, that the penalty was against Harbaugh.  Were the penalty imposed on the position, as the Big Ten suggests, then Moore could not have served as head coach last Saturday. The penalty would have been that Michigan had to play the game without a head coach. Petitti completely ignored the rule about who is to be penalized to achieve his desired result.

Harbaugh could, by Depitti’s logic, truthfully claim: “L’Université c’est moi!” or “Michigan c’est moi!”

Joined: 09/26/2015

MGoPoints: 113

Koop

November 15th, 2023 at 2:51 PM ^

The state court judge in the Harbaugh v. Big Ten case isn't considering the possible federal antitrust issue that Professor Crane raised in the Yale Law Journal note:

  1. The plaintiffs (Harbaugh and Michigan) didn't allege it.
     
  2. If they had, that would have made it possible for the Big Ten to "remove" to federal court--which even if ultimately unsuccessful could delay the case by up to 90 days, effectively killing the chances for injunctive relief before the bowls and playoff.
     
  3. Most significantly, the antitrust issue Professor Crane raised is with the NCAA rule, not the Big Ten's enforcement of its own rules. Interesting down the road with the NCAA, perhaps, but too removed and esoteric as a strategic matter for the present case against the Big Ten, which is essentially a breach of contract (state law) case. 

The original thread from November 9 has more analysis on the antitrust issues.

Joined: 08/16/2022

MGoPoints: 2699

bronxblue

November 15th, 2023 at 2:06 PM ^

Yeah, this has been posted already, which unsurprisingly comes as a shock to the WSJ who've been wrong about basically everything thus far, and I doubt it has any merit.  

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171752

25dodgebros

November 15th, 2023 at 2:15 PM ^

I think Harbaugh has an antitrust argument based on the meeting of his competitors at which they apparently conspired to prevent him from competing with them in the field of college football coaching.  Clearly a conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act.  

Joined: 01/06/2011

MGoPoints: 1630