Taking Away the N.C.A.A.'s Ball

By Michael S. Serrlll

And in other court decisions, three Administration victories

Every year before its summer recess the U.S. Supreme Court caps months of work with a final deluge of opinions that appears to undermine the institution's image as a temple of calm reflection. Whether the cause is the court's work load or the Justices' inclination to be dilatory, this year has been no different. At the start of last week, the court still had 43 undecided cases, almost one-quarter of the full term's output. By the end of last week, 20 decisions had been announced in a mountain of opinions, concurrences and dissents. One in particular stirred broad national interest: the Justices took the ball away from the N.C.A.A.

In 1951, recognizing TV as a threat to gate receipts, the National Collegiate Athletic Association created a "television plan" that gave it exclusive control of all college football broadcasts, a control that is now measured in big money. For 1982-85, the N.C.A.A. negotiated $281 million worth of TV deals covering its 509 members that have intercollegiate football teams. Contracts with ABC and CBS contained numerous restrictions designed to spread the wealth. For example, they guaranteed television appearances to both large and small schools, established limits on the number of games that could be broadcast, barred any team from appearing more than six times in two years and effectively set the price teams could receive for a broadcast.

In 1981 the universities of Oklahoma and Georgia sued, charging that the N.C.A.A.'s TV contracts illegally restrained the commerce in long passes and end runs. Last week the Supreme Court upheld their claim. Writing for a 7-to-2 majority, Justice John Paul Stevens found that however worthy the N.C.A.A. might be, it had violated the federal antitrust laws. Dissenting Justice Byron White, a former football All-America at the University of Colorado, argued that the TV plan was just one element in a larger N.C.A.A. structure designed to discourage the "professionalization" of intercollegiate sports. Stevens saw the action differently. Without the N.C.A.A. restrictions, many more games would be broadcast by local stations, he observed. "Individual competitors lose their freedom to compete. Price is higher and output lower than they would otherwise be, and both are unresponsive to consumer preference."

By coincidence, the N.C.A.A. and its Division I-A schools--the biggest football powers--were meeting in Chicago right after the high court ruling, and they frantically sought to avoid chaos and the dread consequences of TV oversaturation.

There seemed to be strong sentiment for some sort of voluntary TV package put together by the N.C.A.A. The court appears to have left room for a loosened arrangement, but it remained unclear exactly what kind of plan could now pass muster. In the meantime, pressure for some schools to make private deals is already formidable.

Notre Dame, whose team is the most marketable to a national audience, has been offered $20 million for its schedule, though for now Athletic Director Gene Corrigan favors a group arrangement. In anticipation of the court's decision, the Big Ten and Pacific-10 conferences had already signed separate provisional TV deals. Oklahoma and Nebraska had also put their fall schedules up for sale, but they were disappointed with the results. "A lot of people felt that the open market would be a golden market," said John Swofford, head of the N.C.A.A.'S football television committee. "I don't think that's going to be the case. I see more games being broadcast, but I see those games worth fewer dollars." With the season openers only eight weeks away, college football teams had the ball again, but they were running it back out of their end zone.

The court's rulings last week also gave the Reagan Administration, which has done well before the high bench this year, three more victories.

-- The Administration was happiest about winning its bid to ease some anti-pollution regulations. In areas of the country that do not meet national air-quality standards, federal law requires an elaborate permit procedure for the construction of new or modified industrial facilities. In 1981, however, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that the permit requirements do not apply if increased pollution from an addition is offset by a pollution reduction elsewhere in the plant. By a 6-to-O vote, the court found that there is nothing in the law to bar this so-called bubble approach. In language that should strengthen the authority of agencies to interpret the statutes they administer, Justice Stevens wrote, "Federal judges--who have no constituency--have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do."

-- The Administration also won when the court upheld regulations that in practice bar travel by most citizens to Cuba. Under a 1977 law, Congress required that the President declare a "national emergency" and consult with Congress before imposing economic sanctions on foreign countries. Without following these procedures, the Treasury Department in 1982 prohibited the spending of U.S. dollars on hotels and other tourist accommodations in Cuba. By a 5-to-4 vote, the court agreed with the Administration that the restrictions were allowed under a technical reading of the "grandfather clause" in the law.

-- The third pro-Government decision grew out of plans for a 1982 demonstration in two parks near the White House. To call attention to the plight of the homeless, the Community for Creative Non-Violence proposed to put up 60 tents to house actual homeless people. The National Park Service authorized the tents, but invoked an anticamping regulation and refused to allow demonstrators to sleep in them.

C.C.N.V. sued and lost, 7 to 2. Dissenter Thurgood Marshall agreed with the group that a homeless sleep-in was the very essence of its protest and, though "a novel mode of communication," should have been allowed. But Justice Byron White, writing for a seven-judge majority, held that under the First Amendment the Government has the right to make the conduct of demonstrators "subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions." Once again, the court seemed to say, the Reagan Administration had deftly found legal support for its actions.

-- By Michael S. Serrlll.

-- Reported by Anne Constable/Washington and Don Winbush/ Chicago

With reporting by Anne Constable, Don Winbush