plan from its rule making, it did not comment directly on whether the Sherman Act would apply to the latter. Although insofar as we are aware no court of appeals expressly has addressed the issue of whether' antitrust laws apply to the NCAA’s promulgation of eligibility rules, cf. McCormack v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 845 F.2d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir.1988) (assuming without deciding that the NCAA’s eligibility rules were subject to antitrust scrutiny and holding that the “no-draft” and “no-agent” rules do not have an anticorhpeti-tive effect), many district courts have held that the Sherman Act does not apply to the NCAA’s promulgation and enforcement of eligibility requirements. See Gaines v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,. 746 F.Supp. 738, 744-46 (M.D.Tenn.1990) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
holding board cannot ignore the rules it adopts under the delegation of authority to prescribe rules for its governance and the governance of the university because such rules have the force and effect of statute holding that antitrust law cannot be used to invalidate ncaa eligibility rules but noting in dicta that the noagent and nodraft rules have primarily procompetitive effects recognizing privilege under federal rules recognizing in dicta power to substantively consolidate entities but noting that power to be used sparingly holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery