A federal judge has denied a preliminary injunction from plaintiffs who have sued the NCAA over a rule that allows Division I institutions to participate in certified basketball contests no more than twice every four years. A request for a permanent injunction was held in abeyance.

The July 19 ruling from Ohio federal district court judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. denies the plaintiffs in the case -- Worldwide Basketball and Sports Tours, Inc.; Sports Promotions, LLC; and Sports Tours International -- a preliminary injunction that would prevent the NCAA from enforcing the "two-in-four" rule. The legislation (Proposal No. 98-92), which became effective in 2000-01, precludes institutions from participating in more than one certified event in a given academic year and not more than two certified events every four years.

The rationale for passing the legislation was that it increased competitive equity by giving more basketball teams the opportunity to compete in the certified events. College and university presidents also favored the rule because it promoted academics by reducing the overall number of games played. Plaintiffs sought relief from the rule in December 2001, however, alleging that it violated antitrust laws, and that the two-in-four rule impaired their ability to fill events.

Plaintiffs in the case tried to demonstrate significant loss or injury because of the two-in-four rule, but the opinion issued by Judge Sargus stated that "the court cannot conclusively determine at this juncture whether the plaintiffs will be able to show injury of the sort that the antitrust law is designed to prevent."

According to Sargus, plaintiffs argued that because of the rule, "major" schools could not participate in the events on an annual basis, thereby making it more difficult for the plaintiffs to secure other teams' participation in the events, which could result in a financial loss and a "decrease of output" in the third and fourth years of the rule's effect. But Sargus noted that "there are, however, 25 exempt events and 319 teams in Division I; thus, focusing on the total number of available teams, as opposed to only the 'major' teams, would tend to negate the plaintiffs' argument of a potential decrease in output."

Sargus did, however, hold the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction in abeyance, indicating his desire for the rule to play out through years three and four before determining whether it did in fact cause a financial loss.

"By filling most of the available slots with (major) schools in the first two years of the rule, slots in years three and four will, presumably, be harder to fill with other schools," Sargus said. "The fact that the slots will be harder for the plaintiffs to fill does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of a substantially adverse effect on competition.

"Plaintiffs could conceivably sponsor events that do not draw as many 'major' schools in years three and four and then resume filling their events with 'major' schools when the four-year cycle starts again. While this result would no doubt impact the plaintiffs' profits, such a loss does not necessarily equate with a decrease in competition in the market."

NCAA General Counsel Elsa Kircher Cole said she was satisfied with the court's decision.

"The judge properly focused on the intent of the antitrust law, which is to protect competition, not profits to the competitors," Cole said. "We believe that in spreading opportunities around, competition in the long run will be strengthened, and a large pool of member schools will be attractive to those promoting certified events."