## Facts

- A dispute arose between Colorado Seminary (University of Denver) (UD) and the NCAA over the eligibility of several UD hockey players under NCAA rules.
- The NCAA imposed sanctions that included:
  - Two-year probation of UD’s hockey program with a ban on postseason participation in NCAA events.
  - One-year probation of all other UD athletic teams with a similar postseason ban.
- UD and several student-athletes sued to enjoin enforcement of the sanctions, alleging violations of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, including asserted impacts on athletic participation and scholarship-related interests.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the NCAA (and denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment), concluding the student-athletes lacked a constitutionally protected interest in intercollegiate athletics and UD had not been deprived of any constitutionally protected right.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether student-athletes have a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in participating in intercollegiate athletics (including interests tied to athletic scholarships) sufficient to trigger Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection protections.
2. Whether UD had a constitutionally protected right infringed by NCAA probation and postseason bans.
3. Whether the challenged NCAA disciplinary sanctions amounted to a cognizable constitutional violation warranting relief under federal constitutional theories asserted by plaintiffs.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the NCAA.
- The court held the student-athletes’ interest in participating in intercollegiate sports was not constitutionally protected.
- The court held no constitutionally protected right of the university was violated by the NCAA sanctions.
- The court relied on prior circuit precedent concerning high school athletics and treated asserted differences (including scholarship arrangements) as differences in degree, not kind.

## Legal Principles

- Participation in intercollegiate athletics, without more, is not a fundamental right and does not ordinarily constitute a protected liberty or property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Alleged benefits associated with athletic participation (including future opportunities) are generally too speculative to create a due process-protected property interest.
- Restrictions such as postseason bans and probation do not, standing alone, establish a due process-protected liberty interest.
- NCAA sanctions imposed on a member institution, absent infringement of an independently protected constitutional right, do not violate the Constitution.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld NCAA probation and postseason bans against UD, ruling that neither student-athletes nor the university demonstrated a constitutionally protected interest that would support Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection claims based solely on loss of intercollegiate athletic participation.


Colo. Seminary (Univ. of Denver) v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 570 F.2d 320 (10th Cir. 1978)