In Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2012), two former college football players who lost their scholarships challenged certain NCAA rules that prohibited schools from offering multi-year scholarships and capped the number of football scholarships each school could offer. Id. at 332-33. The Agnew court read Board of Regents broadly and concluded that, when an NCAA bylaw is clearly meant to help maintain the revered tradition of amateurism in college sports or the preservation of the student-athlete in higher education, the bylaw should be presumed procompetitive. Id. at 342-43. The court concluded, however, that the scholarship limitations that were before it did not implicate the preservation of amateurism, since awarding more or longer scholarships to college athletes would not change their status as amateurs. Id. at 344. Thus, no procompetitive presumption applied to the scholarship rules. Id. at 345. Instead of dismissing the plaintiffs antitrust claims on the merits, the court dismissed them on the unrelated ground that the plaintiffs had failed to plead the existence of a cognizable market. Id.