AG threatens action to halt JMU bowl ‘exemption’

Pete Thamel, ESPNNov 16, 2023, 01:15 PM ET A law office engaged by Virginia Chief law officer Jason Miyares on Wednesday sent out a need letter to the NCAA, acquired by ESPN, that threatens legal action if James Madison’s “exemption from bowl consideration in 2023” isn’t reversed.The letter was

sent in advance of the choice by the NCAA on Wednesday night to deny James Madison a postseason waiver approval. It asks for a response by twelve noon on Friday.The Dukes are 10-0 and ranked No. 18 in the current AP Leading 25 poll. They have actually not been included yet in the College Football Playoff rankings because they aren’t qualified for the postseason.”We are prepared to act upon behalf of JMU in the unfortunate scenario that JMU’s request for relief is not timely authorized,”stated the letter, acquired by ESPN on Thursday. “Particularly, JMU is prepared to immediately submit a claim in the Western District of Virginia asserting that the bowl ban breaks the antitrust and, potentially, other laws.”Editor’s Picks The NCAA’s decision Wednesday efficiently ends JMU’s possibilities in playing in a New Year’s 6 championship game, as the Dukes can not be a conference champ and therefore would not certify. There is an opportunity that JMU might play in a lower-profile bowl, nevertheless, as it could fill an area if there are insufficient bowl-eligible groups. “The facts here haven’t altered concerning JMU, “College Football Playoff executive director Expense Hancock said Wednesday night.

“The committee considers all groups that are eligible to play in the postseason, and that’s where things stand. “Miyares ‘office revealed Wednesday night the state attorney general of the United States office was disappointed in the decision and exploring legal options.In a statement to ESPN on Thursday, Miyares called the NCAA’s choice “incredibly disappointing.””[ The NCAA] demonstrates that they

, as soon as again, neglect the best interests of our nation’s student-athletes,”Miyares statement stated.

” The NCAA has made an arbitrary and capricious decision that has an anti-competitive and exceptionally negative effect on student-athletes, JMU, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and college football as a whole.”Miyares also referenced the possible economic advantage to the school, which is a state university.”This injustice transcends sports, and should not be enabled to stand,”

Miyares said.”After duplicated cautions to the NCAA, they still refuse to do what is right.

Therefore, I am prepared to expose the NCAA’s illegal conduct and look for justice for James Madison University through lawsuits, supplied the University license me to do so.”The letter sent out to the NCAA states that a potential lawsuit would show an”unreasonable restraint of sell the marketplace”and cites the Sherman Act and Virginia Antitrust Act. It calls the banning of groups from the postseason during NCAA transitions”unnecessary,”from”both a practical and legal point of view.”JMU is in the 2nd year of a shift from the FCS to the FBS and in its second season of full Sun Belt competition in football. If there’s no change in the rule, the

school will be qualified for postseason play next year.The letter prepares for an antitrust lawsuit.”Whether examined under a’peek’or full guideline of factor analysis, completion result is most likely to be the very same: the rule is anticompetitive, prohibiting more qualified groups from competing in championship game to the advantage of incumbents in the market without any procompetitive justification to support it,”the letter states.On Wednesday, after 4 NCAA committees satisfied and eventually declined postseason waivers for JMU and 2 other schools, the NCAA launched a declaration.”Requirements for members transitioning into FBS are based on aspects beyond athletics efficiency, “the NCAA board of directors administrative committee stated in the declaration.”They are planned to guarantee schools are correctly examining their long-lasting

sustainability in the neighborhood.”The NCAA added that if Department I members don’t think the shift requirements are proper, the concerns need to be resolved through guideline modifications instead of waiver requests.