The Lions' Pride

Of course Emmert and company reference the consent decree that they knew of we signed, they owned our asses because they have no case otherwise.

I don't disagree that it's their best argument... never contested that. All I'm saying is that if the motion is denied, and an interlocutory appeal is denied as it should be, the parties might WANT to settle but I find it very unlikely that they will.... which means lengthy discovery and summary judgment. Settlement is about leverage and I just don't think losing the motion to dismiss will be enough leverage to force the NCAA into settle. That last part is obviously my opinion. I am not quibbling with you friend's antitrust analysis or opinion, just that the process doesn't look so cut and dry to me given everything that is at stake for both sides.

Agreed, worse case scenario, I could live with the NCAA chopping off the last year of the bowl ban and lifting the scholarship reductions early as well.

I honestly thought the NCAA's Standing argument would be stronger. You generally don't have the strongest argument when you cite a Treatise rather than an actual case for a proposition. Also, the NCAA failed to raise some of the standing issues in this article.

This is a shocking revelation. Between your 10,000 posts and extensive site monitoring, how have you made billable hours?

I can't see the state ever beating the NCAA.

"Governor Corbett is a member of PSU's governing board, which voted to ratify the Consent Decree."

Did the board actually ratify it? I thought they just issued support for Erickson and moved on. Anyone?

They did not ratify it. You are correct.

I do believe they could at any time, however.

This is basically the point...

I can say, anecdotally, that in about 2 years of clerking, I received 50-60 civil cases, and I saw probably 80 motions to dismiss. Defendants almost always file these because, guess what? Their attorneys can bill for it!!! Then, either Plaintiff calls their bluff or Plaintiff amends. If they amend, you get another MTD. It's absurd, but this is nowhere near the "only defense" the NCAA has, as some are intimating. Latham & Watkins is a top-10 firm in the world. They are GOOOOOOD. They will find all sorts of stuff.

This is, of course, not to say that they won't settle, but they definitely have many more rounds of ammo if the NCAA wants to keep pushing.

Edit: I'm reading the brief now. It's as good as you'd expect from L&W. Full of inaccuracies that we know about, but that the general public will believe. Luckily, this is a judge and not a twittermoron. BTW - a friend just informed me that Judge Kane has a reputation for denying motions to dismiss with little to no explanation, which means a (relatively) quick turnaround.