Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
teams and therefore proeompetitive because they enhance public interest in intercollegiate athletics” and suggested that rules establishing eligibility requirements of student-athletes were such controls, while rules limiting television broadcasts were not. See id. at 117, 104 S.Ct. at 2969. While the parties have not cited any opinion addressing the particular bylaw at issue here, and we have found none, other courts have held that the NCAA’s “no-draft” and “no-agent” rules, which disqualify a-student-athlete from further intercollegiate competition if the student-athlete enters a professional draft or contacts an agent, are reasonable because they are procompetitive. See McCormack, 845 F.2d at 1343; Banks v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 977 F.2d 1081, 1087-94 (7th Cir.1992) ; Gaines, 746 F.Supp. at 746; Jones, 392
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability
B. holding that ncaas nodraft and noagent rules do not have an anticompetitive impact on a discernable market
C. recognizing that rates awarded in other cases do not set the prevailing market rateonly the market can do that
D. recognizing implied duty to market
E. holding elements of attempted monopolization claim under  2 of sherman act are intent anticompetitive conduct and dangerous probability of success in a relevant market
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.