that decision aside. But he also pointed to reasons why the case might fail to overturn the exemption. Six of the current justices at that time had been part of a Court that had denied certiorari to recent cases challenging the exemption such as San Jose and Right Field. Also, Alston had targeted a "quasi-exemption" aimed at preserving amateurism in college athletics by one previous decision, whereas Flood reaffirmed an exemption established in two earlier decisions and addressed to some degree by legislation. Lastly, Gorsuch's language in Alston may also have been meant to affirm how unique and special the baseball exemption is: "To this end, Alston and other cases which declined to extend the baseball exemption to other sports only serve to strengthen the baseball exemption even more." Ehrlich described this as the "better read" rather than an invitation to bring a case bringing down the exemption. Analysis Blackmun's opinion was immediately unpopular among sportswriters such as Arthur Daley of The New York Times, who decried it as revealing "a total lack of logic". It has retrospectively been criticized by legal scholars as well, who are unhappy both with the rigid application of stare decisis and with the continued exemptions received by baseball for its reputation as the "national pastime". William Eskridge has referred to Flood v. Kuhn and the other cases in the "baseball trilogy" as "the most frequently criticized example of excessively strict stare decisis" among legal scholars. For Kevin D. McDonald, the case is both "indefensible as a matter of fact or policy" and "an embarrassment to the Court". Roger Ian Abrams, at Northeastern, wrote that the Court had "boxed itself in" by insisting on upholding Federal Baseball in Flood despite acknowledging the different circumstances regarding those two cases. David Snyder went so far as to say that in arguing Flood, "the Supreme Court had completely lost sight of the factual, legal and conceptual underpinnings of Federal Baseball". Morgen Sullivan notes that there is a contradiction in the Flood ruling, as the opinion explicitly states that baseball's antitrust exemption is limited to the reserve system, but ends by quoting a line in Toolson that expands the exemption to "the business of baseball". Mitchell Nathanson, meanwhile, states that the Supreme Court "finally acknowledged the absurdity of Holmes' contention ... but then inserted its own absurdity when it concluded that the fact that baseball is engaged in interstate