• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!

The PAC/MWC Dominoes Begin to Fall

Quite the resume. https://www.winston.com/en/professionals/kessler-jeffrey-l

summary below by ChatGTP




1. NCAA v. Alston



Supreme Court Decision – Unanimous (9–0)





  • Overview: Kessler represented former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston and other athletes, arguing that the NCAA's restrictions on education-related benefits (like laptops, internships, and post-graduate scholarships) violated antitrust laws.
  • Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the NCAA violated antitrust laws.
  • Impact:


  • Opened the door for schools to compete in offering educational benefits.
  • Led directly to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) reforms, even though NIL wasn't the direct subject of the case.
  • Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion strongly suggested all NCAA compensation limits might be vulnerable under antitrust law.




2. House v. NCAA

  • Filed: 2020 by Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman.
  • Overview: A class-action lawsuit on behalf of college athletes seeking retroactive NIL payments and damages from the NCAA and Power Five conferences.
  • Settlement: In 2024, the NCAA and power conferences agreed to a historic $2.8 billion settlement.
  • Impact:


  • NCAA agreed to backpay damages and set up a revenue-sharing model for future athletes.
  • Paved the way for a professionalized model of college sports.
 
There are a few whiners on X complaining that no reporters are addressing the fact that the CSU Trustees must approve one of its member institutions to pursue litigation. It appears they are correct, and applies even if the lawsuit is privately funded for a sports-related issue.

Check out the CSU Trustees agenda for May 19-21, 2025 under Board of Trustees – Closed Session, which included: Anticipated Litigation: One Matter.


Maybe they already have approval?
 
Hornet25 said:
It was inevitable. Can't offer a waiver process, accept the application and fees for review and then claim there was never any avenue to be Independent.

Also, Kessler doesn't take this case unless he thinks he can win.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely shocked we were this ready with Counsel, and that it’s Kessler. For the people that say everything’s talk - Kessler already confirmed he’s representing Sac State. Dr. Wood talks big, but he’s showing he ready to take this to the mat.
 
Kadeezy said:
I am absolutely shocked we were this ready with Counsel, and that it’s Kessler. For the people that say everything’s talk - Kessler already confirmed he’s representing Sac State. Dr. Wood talks big, but he’s showing he ready to take this to the mat.
Click to expand...

NCAA is opening themselves up to not being able to prevent any school from moving up if they lose this case. I think they keep underestimating Wood.
 
the Rat said:
There are a few whiners on X complaining that no reporters are addressing the fact that the CSU Trustees must approve one of its member institutions to pursue litigation. It appears they are correct, and applies even if the lawsuit is privately funded for a sports-related issue.

Check out the CSU Trustees agenda for May 19-21, 2025 under Board of Trustees – Closed Session, which included: Anticipated Litigation: One Matter.


Maybe they already have approval?
Click to expand...
The word "litigation" only appears 3 times in the document and it appears in sections related to labor disputes and construction project related claims. Doesn't appear to be related to this potential litigation with the NCAA but I didn't do a thorough read.
 
Kadeezy said:
I am absolutely shocked we were this ready with Counsel, and that it’s Kessler. For the people that say everything’s talk - Kessler already confirmed he’s representing Sac State. Dr. Wood talks big, but he’s showing he ready to take this to the mat.
Click to expand...
We shouldn't be. The end game of this whole attempt at FBS saga ending in court had a strong possibility at the onset and it shows that Dr. Wood and his team considered this a strong possibility as the tweet indicates that Kessler has been working with Sac State in some capacity through the FBS application process.

That said, not to throw cold water on the current situation but there is no guarantee a suit is filed. I'm sure a case can't be determined to be credible until Sac State receives a formal written denial of the FBS waiver from the NCAA. I have no idea how long that takes and so far what has been made public (at least to my knowledge) is only tweets of statements pertaining to the denial.

That said, if reasons for the FBS waiver denial are solely based on not having an FBS invite then I hope this goes to court. There are a lot of optics and narratives to spin from such a case, and lots of entertainment would ensue.
 
The requirement to have a league invite to be eligible for FBS is the definition of anti competition in the Sherman Act. You can see the plan. Announce intent to be FBs, hire coach, get stadium in works, schedule FBS games in 26, talk to NCAA president in San Ramon, apply, go to media and describe the unfairness of the application denial. Brilliant strategy from a legal perspective, with the NCAA comments on record. Kessler is a top level attorney and the resume to prove it. I believe the plan put this pretty close to checkmate as a legal case can be.
 
SDHornet said:
The irony of the proverbial FBS floodgates opening up to anyone that meets the FBS requirements because they want to keep us out should not be lost on anyone.
Click to expand...
What's the odds that we suddenly get a football only invite from some conference? I'm sure that the NCAA would like to avoid losing a lawsuit over this causing them way more trouble than it's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top