Will the NBA Players Decertfy-LSU at Alabama-

Friday, Nov. 4
8:00 PM
Central Michigan at Kent State
ESPN-2
Two of the mediocre teams in the MAC.

9:00 PM
USC at Colorado
ESPN
USC has a chance for a big rebound after their triple-overtime loss last week.


Saturday, Nov. 5
12:00 PM
Michigan (15) at Iowa
ESPN
Michigan respond big against Purdue last week.

Minnesota at Michigan State (17)
Big Ten Network
Michigan State comes home, after getting crushed on the road against Nebraska.

Texas Tech at Texas (21)
FX
Is Texas Tech a good team, or was their win against Oklahoma just a fluke?

Louisville at West Virginia (24)
ESPN-3.com
A win for Louisville will end any chance the Mountaineers had at winning the Big East.

Syracuse at Connecticut
ESPN-U
This game is all about bowl positing in the Big East.

Indiana at Ohio State
Big Ten Network
Ohio State with two huge victories over Illinois and Wisconsin, now get’s an easy game against IU.

Ball State at Eastern Michigan
ESPN-3.com
With a win Ball State becomes bowl eligible.

12:21 PM
Vanderbilt at Florida
SEC Network
Can Florida finally get a victory after losing four straight games?

12:30 PM
New Mexico State at Georgia (18)
ESPN-3.com
Georgia will continue their surge up the SEC East division this week.

Virginia at Maryland
ESPN-3.com
Only people who are fans of the ACC will watch this game.

North Carolina at North Carolina St.
ESPN-3.com
It’s the battle of North Carolina!

3:00 PM
Duke at Miami (FL)
ESPN-3.com
Don’t be surprised if Duke upsets the Hurricanes this weekend.

3:30 PM
Stanford (4) at Oregon State
ABC
It’s the Beavers (Oregon St.) vs. the Trees (Stanford).

Texas A&M at Oklahoma (6)
ESPN-2
This will be no cake walk for the Sooners. But if TAMU is up at half time, it’s almost a guarantee that they will find a way to lose.

Northwestern at Nebraska (10)
Big Ten Network
Nebraska and Rex Burkhead are fun to watch.

Purdue at Wisconsin (20)
ESPN-2
Purdue has a tough task at playing a very angry Wisconsin team.

Ole Miss at Kentucky
ESPN-U
Only people who are fans of the SEC will watch this game.

Louisiana-Monroe at Louisiana-Lafayette
ESPN-3.com
It’s the battle of Louisiana!

Army at Air Force
CBS
The battle of our armed forces, as the Army battles our Air Force.

4:00 PM
Idaho at San Jose State
ESPN-3.com
WAC powers collide!

7:00 PM
South Florida at Rutgers
ESPN-3.com
The winner of this game will only improve where they are going for a bowl game.

Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
ESPN-U
Pittsburgh at 4-4 has as good of a BCS chance as any team in the BCS now.

Middle Tennessee at Tennessee
ESPN-3.com
Maybe Tennessee can finally get a victory this week.

7:15 PM
South Carolina (9) at Arkansas (7)
ESPN
It’s the silver medal game to the real SEC game that everyone is talking about.

7:30 PM
Arizona State (19) at UCLA
Versus
With a win Arizona State will have all but locked up the Pac 12 South division.

Tennessee-Martin at Mississippi St.
ESPN-3.com
Only fans of these schools will be watching this game.

8:00 PM
LSU (1) at Alabama (2)
CBS
I hear there’s a lot of hype about this game.

Kansas State (14) at Oklahoma St. (3)
ABC
With a loss, to Ok. St, the BCS Standings will be turned upside down.

Notre Dame at Wake Forest
ESPN-2
Notre Dame can continue to have a good season with a win.

10:30 PM
Louisiana Tech at Fresno St
ESPN-U
WAC action with middle of the conference teams.

11:59 PM
Utah State at Hawaii
ESPN-3.com
And for those who want to stay up late, you can watch this game online live from Hawaii.







LSU at Alabama
It must be easy for LSU fans to look at LSU coach Les Miles and think the grass is greener — and tastier — on the other side of the field. Especially this week, when the ghost of championships past is pacing along the opposite sideline.
In Nick Saban, LSU fans see the scowling face of the man who in the early 2000s lifted the Tigers from the decades of doldrums that had beaten down the once-proud program. The man who followed a series of forgettable coaches — Jerry Stovall, Mike Archer, Curley Hallman, Gerry DiNardo — and quickly turned LSU back into a championship team with an SEC title in his second season and a national championship two years after that. The man who currently is working similar wonders at Alabama, who looks and acts and wins like a big-time college football coach should.
What's the 'X factor' in the game?All-time No. 1 vs. No. 2
Then they turn to Miles, and they see a guy who looks like everybody’s favorite uncle. A lovable goof who nibbles on grass during games and can transform a simple sentence into a 10-car pileup. A coach whose game-day decisions and clock-management skills often seem as dependable as Kim Kardashian’s wedding vows.
But this is a case where you can't judge a coach by his blunders. For although Miles might seem to be Saban's opposite in nearly every way, the two men have one common trait: Their teams win football games. A lot.
When No. 1 LSU and No. 2 Alabama meet Saturday in Tuscaloosa in this year’s Game of the Century, it will be a matchup of the two best coaches in the Southeastern Conference and possibly in all of college football. That is a description often bestowed upon Saban, who is seeking his third national championship in nine years. But Miles? One of the best?
This is, after all, the man who wasted nearly 20 precious seconds before calling a timeout near the end of a 25-23 loss to Mississippi in 2009, then offered this gem of an explanation: "I'd be the first one to tell you that I would like to think that I had called timeout before that. I can't imagine that I did not. I can't tell you that I did, and that's my issue."
It is one of numerous issues the LSU faithful have had with Miles since he replaced Saban as the team's head coach in 2005. But although the path Miles takes might seem meandering and undisciplined, it is becoming increasingly difficult for fans to argue with the end results. In the bottom-line world of wins and losses, Miles has nearly been Saban's equal in recent years.
Over their past seven SEC seasons, including this year, Saban is 73-15 and Miles is 70-17 (we're not counting the two years Saban spent in the NFL). Miles has four seasons of 11 or more victories during that span, compared to three for Saban. And perhaps most importantly, the coaches are 2-2 head-to-head.
Still, most people have a hard time putting Miles in Saban's class. Saban is the perfectionist who frets over the smallest detail and is never satisfied. At his news conference this week Saban said, "I lose sleep over every game, even the ones we win. You always have areas of concern that you worry about."
Nov. 1: LSU coach Les Miles says nothing will be normal about the No. 1 Tigers' game against No. 2 Alabama.
That is exactly what fans want to hear from their coach, especially a group as fanatical as Crimson Tide supporters. They are consumed by Alabama football 365 days a year, and they want the head coach to feel the same way.
Miles might be as committed to the game as Saban, but it often doesn't show. He sometimes seems a little too loose, a little too willing to explain away losses rather than treating the defeat as a personal insult that will gnaw away and leave him with many sleepless nights. Combine that persona with his many in-game eccentricities, and the 'Mad Hatter' is a coach that some LSU fans have been reluctant to completely embrace.
At an LSU alumni event in Birmingham, Ala., before this season began, a speaker asked the gathering what they thought of Miles. Although nobody came out and criticized him, several fans let out a low moan and shook their head. Miles is like the crazy cousin who can be exasperating but causes no real harm. He's frustrating to deal with, but he's family.
Mark Crain, president of the Greater Birmingham LSU Alumni Association, says part of the problem is that Miles had an almost impossible act to follow. Saban resurrected a moribund program (76-70-2 from 1987-99) and gave the Tigers their first national championship since the 1950s. How was Miles supposed to top that?
"A lot of it is just timing," Crain said. "You have to look at where LSU was when Saban took over. He immediately turned it around. People hated to lose that, because he's such a quality coach. You know he is going to get it done. When Miles came in, the program was already built."
Even when Miles led the Tigers to the 2007 national championship, there were some within the LSU community who refused to give him all the credit, saying that he won with Saban's players. Of course, using that same argument, Saban won the '09 title at Alabama with former head coach Mike Shula's players, but nobody makes that claim.
The criticism of Miles became louder in '08 and '09, when the Tigers went a combined 17-9 and lost twice to Saban and Alabama. But last year's 11-2 record and victory over the Tide quieted the roar, and this year's 8-0 start has silenced even the harshest critics.
"I know one guy who is a longtime LSU fan who has been real negative in the past, but he has shut up this year," Crain said. "The number of people who didn't support Miles or thought he was just lucky has gone down dramatically."
It is likely that the number will disappear entirely if the Tigers can go into Bryant-Denny Stadium on Saturday and knock off the Crimson Tide, especially if they then continue onward to yet another national championship. It won't be easy, of course. Saban has not lost to the same coach in consecutive years since Steve Spurrier and Florida beat him in 2000 and '01. But if Miles can somehow turn the trick, it would be tempting to make the argument that he is at least as good as Saban, if not better.
And should LSU lose?
Crain chuckles. "Then I’m sure some of those naysayers will come back and say, 'We got outcoached.'"








Decertification would put 2011-12 NBA season in serious jeopardy
SI.COM

1. What would decertification mean for NBA players?
Decertification would mean that NBA players formally remove the capacity of the union to collectively bargain on their behalf. Players would become independent employees of NBA teams and would lose union protections they currently enjoy. The NBPA would continue to exist, but only as a trade association, which would have limited capabilities for bargaining (for instance, the players' association could continue to bargain in regards to licensing deals, such as for players' images and likenesses in video games). Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher and other union leaders would likely see their influence over players wane, while other players or possibly player agents could attempt to fill the leadership void. Without a unifying entity, however, rival factions of players and agents could emerge and hinder attempts to resolve the labor crisis, especially if the NBA is not sure with whom they should negotiate.
Decertification would provide players with a powerful legal weapon: the ability to file federal antitrust litigation against the league. Indeed, without collective bargaining between NBA players and the league, various restrictions on how teams compete with one another -- such as the salary cap and the NBA draft -- would become subject to federal antitrust law. Although generally popular with fans and although they promote parity, these restrictions are also at least partly anticompetitive. After all, they reflect agreements among competing teams to refrain from free-market competition for players.
This reduced competition limits players' earning potential and choice of employers. Without an NBA draft, for instance, top amateur players could encourage multiple teams to bid for their services and those players could sign with teams in preferred locations. The comparative competitiveness and anti-competitiveness of these rules would provide the basis of any antitrust litigation; if sufficiently persuasive, players could convince a judge to issue injunctive relief in the form of ending the lockout until a full trial on the merits of the claims. If players ultimately prevailed in such a trial -- which would likely take years -- they would be entitled to treble damages, which would likely mean billions of dollars.
Decertification is not an immediate event, nor is it instantly reversible. Instead, it normally requires recognition by the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency that regulates union-management activities. In the alternative, players could seek a disclaimer of interest, which is a similar but swifter and more retractable step and refers to the players' association disclaiming interest in representing players. Either decertification or disclaimer of interest would enable players to file antitrust litigation.
NBA players are inclined to opt for decertification because it could help them defend against the league's unfair labor practices charge with the NLRB. Decertification would signal that the players are serious about the Players' Association no longer representing them; only disclaiming interest could suggest that the players' association will reclaim interest the moment a deal is reached with the NBA. The NBA could argue that the players are only disclaiming interest to bring antitrust litigation.

2. How likely is it that the players would prevail in an antitrust litigation?
Not likely.
For starters, the NBA has been one step ahead of the players when it comes to antitrust litigation. In August, the league filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, decisions from which are reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The NBA asks the court for preventative relief, namely to block players from challenging the lockout on antitrust grounds. More ambitiously, the league also asks the court for permission to void player contracts in the event the union legally decertifies. This week U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe ruled that he needs more time to evaluate the claims. His decision would likely delay the filing of separate antitrust litigation by players.
In antitrust litigation with players, the NBA is bolstered by recent precedent, specifically the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's opinion in Tom Brady et al. v. NFL. In that case, the Eighth Circuit clearly stated that the NFL was authorized to conduct an injunctive-proof lockout under federal law, specifically the Norris-La Guardia Act. Although the Eighth Circuit's opinion is only influential -- rather than binding -- in other federal jurisdictions, it supplies the NBA with a favorable opinion from a very similar and recent dispute. Indeed, had the NFL lost before the Eighth Circuit, it is possible the NBA would have adopted a different legal strategy than the one it has shown.
The NBA's choice of filing the lawsuit in the Second Circuit, instead of the Eighth Circuit, is intriguing. With the Timberwolves based in Minneapolis, the NBA would have seemingly possessed sufficient nexus to file the lawsuit in the Eighth Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over federal district courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. And had the NBA's lawsuit been filed in the Eighth Circuit, it would have been governed by favorable precedent set in the Tom Brady litigation. However, the NBA probably reasoned that 1) since both the NBA and players' association are headquartered in New York, the players could have sought to have the case moved to the Second Circuit, a process which would have delayed the litigation process; and 2) the Second Circuit has its own set of league-friendly labor and antitrust law rulings, including in Maurice Clarett v. NFL (NFL age limit) and Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee (MLB owners unilaterally changing rules during the 1994 baseball strike).
By filing a lawsuit in the Second Circuit, the NBA also makes it much harder for players to seek redress in a more sympathetic circuit, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over courts in California, Oregon and Arizona and which is regarded as more pro-labor than other federal circuits. While players could still file an antitrust claim in the Ninth Circuit, courts there would be poised to refuse to consider the claims given that the relevant issues are already being heard in the Second Circuit.
In terms of its legal arguments, the NBA may be poised to offer more persuasive reasoning for the legality of its lockout than the NFL could muster for its own lockout. One key factor in a legal analysis of whether a lockout should be enjoined is the irreparable harm to the locked out employees. Unlike NFL players, who had nowhere else to play professional football during the lockout and some of whom would have never returned to the NFL had the 2011 season been canceled, some NBA players have already signed lucrative contracts with teams in foreign basketball leagues. The NBA can maintain that if players can sign to play abroad, then a lockout will not cause their professional basketball careers irreparable harm (or at least will cause much less harm than NFL players suffered/would have suffered). In response, the players would likely contend that playing abroad, and living in a foreign country (and possibly relocating one's family there), constitutes a materially different experience than having an NBA career and living in a U.S. city. Plus, many NBA players have not been able to find roster spots abroad.
The NBA also boldly demands that if the union decertifies in a way endorsed by a court, the league should be able to declare all player contracts void and unenforceable. The league insists that because the Uniform Player Contract (signed by every NBA player) is contained in and governed by the collective bargaining agreement, player contracts should become void once the collective bargaining relationship between the league and players ends. In response, the players can argue that the dissolution of a union should not empower an employer to void contracts between individual employees and the employer. If the NBA ultimately prevails in its argument on player contracts, players would collectively stand to lose billions of dollars. It would also throw the league and its franchises in an uncertain state, with every player, save for those drafted in 2011 and who haven't signed contracts, becoming a free agent.

3. Where does the NLRB fit into this discussion?
Both the NBA and the union have filed unfair labor practices charges with the NLRB. They each argue that the other has failed to bargain in good faith. In May, the players' association asserted that the league refuses to offer any meaningful concessions in negotiations because, in the players' view, owners want a prolonged lockout. Two months later, the league contended that players, who have threatened to decertify their union and thereby commence antitrust litigation, have failed to bargain in good faith in hopes of filing antitrust litigation. The NLRB has to gauge whether the NBA and players' negotiation tactics are reasonable bargaining measures or merely abuses of the bargaining process.
The NLRB normally takes a few months to investigate and resolve charges, although that time frame appears extended for league-player disputes. These disputes are rare and tend to involve numerous facts and unique applications of labor law. Keep in mind, the NFL filed an unfair labor practices charge in February and that charge was still not resolved by the conclusion of the NFL lockout. Along those lines, by filing a charge of its own, the NBA may have gained a tactical advantage in terms of delayed timing: the NLRB will probably take longer to consider both charges instead of just one -- particularly since both charges emanate from the same set of facts -- and that could mean the NBA receives favorable and decisive court rulings long before the NLRB acts.
If the NLRB ultimately determines that either charge is meritorious, it would then issue a complaint against the offending party and try to work out a settlement. If a settlement cannot be reached, the NLRB could seek a court order for injunctive relief, such as one that would enjoy the NBA from continuing the lockout. A trial for money damages could also be held and verdict from the trial could be appealed. The entire timeline could take a year or more and not end until possibly after a 2011-12 season will have been played or canceled.
There is reason to believe that the NLRB will not find that either the players' association or league has engaged in unfair labor practices. The willingness of the two sides to engage in substantial negotiations over the last few months, and the ability of the two sides to bridge some of the gap, suggests that they regard themselves as engaged in difficult, but substantive discussions.

4. If the players decertify, is a 2011-12 season more or less likely to occur?
Less likely. Decertification would probably be followed by the filing of antitrust litigation, which would take weeks or months to unravel, let alone resolve. While the league and players could still in effect negotiate during the litigation, since (like during the NFL lockout) settlement discussions over the antitrust lawsuit tend to cover the same issues driving the lockout, the litigation process itself would give commissioner David Stern greater reason to cancel the remainder of the season.
Consider also that financial considerations may only heighten owners' resolve to impose a lockout for as long as is necessary to procure a very different system of player compensation. Keep in mind, while the NFL struggled to show that any of its teams were losing money, the NBA has maintained that 22 of its 30 teams lost money last year (despite records in attendance and TV ratings) and that player salaries are rising to average about $5 million a season.
NBA players dispute the league's numbers and argue that sharing of local TV revenue by teams would mean that more teams turn a profit. Still, it is clear that the league's financial situation is troubling from the vantage point of its owners. This matters considerably in the owners' calculus of whether to continue a lockout into the season.
Put bluntly, if most teams will make more money by not playing games in 2011-12, then the prospect of losing those games is less troubling. With players appearing unified in their core arguments and also apparently prepared to withstand a lengthy work stoppage, the season could very well turn into one that never occurs.