What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Lawsuit That Could Bring Down the NCAA (1 Viewer)

bosoxs45

bosoxs45

Footballguy
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/the_lawsuit_that_could_bring_d.php

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130620/ruling-obannon-ncaa-case/

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/52416070/

College Guide Blog May 6, 2013 11:58 AM The Lawsuit That Could Bring Down the NCAA by Jonathan MahlerThe storm that’s slowly rolling toward Indianapolis quietly gained strength this week with the filing of several devastating documents in a federal court in California. If it stays on course, it’s going to hit with biblical force, reducing the National Collegiate Athletic Association to a heap of rubble.

This storm is also known as O’Bannon v. NCAA. It’s an antitrust lawsuit filed in 2009 by former UCLA All-American basketball player Ed O’Bannon and a handful of other ex-college athletes, who don’t think the NCAA should be profiting from their names and images without sharing the royalty payments.

In their latest filing, O’Bannon’s lawyers argue that the case deserves class-action status. If their request is granted, the NCAA would be liable for claims brought not just by the plaintiffs but also by all former athletes. Anyone who has ever played a Division I college sport would instantly be suing for damages for every instance in which his or her image was used in a video game, highlight reel, broadcast or rebroadcast.

That could get pretty expensive for the NCAA. But if the case were just about a few billion dollars, the association would have settled by now. It hasn’t because O’Bannon and his lawyers are also asking for something else: They want all current and future college athletes to be able to make licensing deals of their own. It’s short yardage from there to the NCAA’s doomsday scenario: schools bidding for the services of student- athletes.

Idle Threats The NCAA’s lawyers, of course, are trying everything they can think of to stop the case from earning class-action status. They’re so desperate that they’re resorted to idle threats, enlisting Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany to file a declaration stating that if the O’Bannon case were to result in student- athletes getting paid, his conference’s schools would probably opt out and move down to Division III. (Early line on the upcoming Amherst-Ohio State game: Buckeyes by 117 1/2.)

Delany’s statement says pretty much everything you need to know about the NCAA’s legal strategy. It’s called — and this is not a legal term — fear-mongering.

The world of college sports would be radically different, the NCAA says — in ways we can’t even begin to predict! — if those responsible for making it a multibillion-dollar business (that is, the athletes) were entitled to receive some monetary compensation for their efforts. This is the same sort of doomsaying that Major League Baseball engaged in during its battle against free agency in 1970, when it warned that without the reserve clause, “professional baseball would simply cease to exist.” For that matter, every time an amateur sports event “goes pro” — whether it’s the Olympics, or golf and tennis’s majors — it has been preceded by predictions of disaster.

O’Bannon’s response to the NCAA may be the most powerful case ever assembled against the association’s propaganda machine. Among other things, it systematically dismantles the NCAA’s argument that the vast majority of its members lose money on sports. In fact, most Division I schools are not caught in an expensive arms race for coaches and athletic facilities. They have simply obscured the profitability of their football and basketball programs with accounting tricks, such as shifting revenue from sports concessions to the food service budget.

The NCAA advances these false claims of poverty so it can argue that its member schools can’t possibly afford to spend more money on sports, much less pay their athletes. O’Bannon’s lawyers put the lie to this, too, invoking foundational truths of economics dating to Adam Smith and David Ricardo: “Redistributing rents does not change true economic costs. It simply takes money from one person or group and shifts it to another.” Translation: Paying athletes wouldn’t result in schools spending additional money on sports. They would just spend less of it on coaches and facilities and more on students.

Star Recruits In truth, if the NCAA’s cartel were finally broken, the college-sports world of tomorrow would look … well, it would look a lot like the college-sports world of today. More student- athletes might decide to stay in school rather than gambling on the draft (a bad thing?). Maybe some second-tier schools would take a run at joining the first tier — not by shelling out $100 million for a new field house, but by spending a lot less on a few five-star recruits.

And that’s about the extent of it. The same schools that invest heavily in their sports teams now would continue to do so, much as the top recruits would continue to gravitate toward the biggest, richest programs. Most of all, fans would continue to watch the games.

The NCAA’s lawyers have one final chance to respond to O’Bannon’s request that the case be certified as a class action before the judge rules in June. Whatever happens from here, the O’Bannon case has already performed a valuable service: It has exposed a system whose sole purpose is to deny the value of talented athletes. That system and its overlord — the NCAA — both deserve to die.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's going to happen eventually. Ever since the NCAA lost the lawsuit to the schools in the 80's, the schools have been in a hypocritical state that was doomed to end bad for them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:thumbup:

I've been on this train for a while now. A couple years ago I started a thread here about a great article that ripped the NCAA a new one. The whole thing is a house of cards and O'Bannon is the stiff wind that's gonna knock it down.

The NCAA knows it, too. Yesterday they announced that they would be ending their deal with EA Sports. The timing is not a coincidence.

 
These kids are working for the university. They should be paid for their work.

I do wonder how they would decide the amount to pay each athlete.

 
This is not going to end well. I see the merits of the case and have no problem with college athletes getting some kind of stipend, but I worry that this will destroy college sports as we know it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
:thumbup:

I've been on this train for a while now. A couple years ago I started a thread here about a great article that ripped the NCAA a new one. The whole thing is a house of cards and O'Bannon is the stiff wind that's gonna knock it down.

The NCAA knows it, too. Yesterday they announced that they would be ending their deal with EA Sports. The timing is not a coincidence.
Click to expand...
This article really was a great article - a real eye-opener. Any big college sports fan should read it.

 
Socrates11 said:
This is not going to end well. I see the merits of the case and have no problem with college athletes getting some kind of stipend, but I worry that this will destroy college sports as we know it.
Click to expand...
I sure don't mind the end of exhorbitant NCAA-related profit from the work of athelete-students. Burn it down.

 
inca911 said:
Socrates11 said:
This is not going to end well. I see the merits of the case and have no problem with college athletes getting some kind of stipend, but I worry that this will destroy college sports as we know it.
Click to expand...
I sure don't mind the end of exhorbitant NCAA-related profit from the work of athelete-students. Burn it down.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. Looking at the system the way it is now it is hard to blame athletes for the shady things they do when the schools make so much cash and they can't even get a summer job.
 
Why not form some type if trust, or pension-like system? Players receive royalties that are put into this account. Then, depending on when the money is withdrawn, there is a sliding scale interest rate. Much like social security. Early withdrawal penalties. You see where I'm going.

Disclaimer: I haven't read very much on this lawsuit and this may have even been mentioned before. It was just the first thing that popped into my head.

 
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.

 
I think this gets us closer to the "Mega-conferences" that are coming anyway. Four big conferences, big playoff system, it's all coming, it's just a matter of when.

Fans of the big schools are probably excited. Texas gets to pitch tradition AND gets to use money to recruit? Ditto for all the big boys.

However, I'd be a little bit nervous if I were fans of the mid-level schools.

Also, this could change things in basketball too. If "bidding" for players was suddenly legal, whats to stop football powerhouses from outbidding historical powers?

 
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
That's another way to look at it. But who is going to enforce the "payscale"? If the NCAA gets blown to smithereens, why would the big schools agree to a system like this?

Easy answer is that they won't.

 
shader said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
That's another way to look at it. But who is going to enforce the "payscale"? If the NCAA gets blown to smithereens, why would the big schools agree to a system like this?

Easy answer is that they won't.
Click to expand...
There will be a governing body, an association if you will. Just not the NCAA in it's present state. Too much money is at stake for there to be no system. You have to perpetuate some sort of competitive balance, or it all goes away. Nobody wants it to go away.

 
Socrates11 said:
This is not going to end well. I see the merits of the case and have no problem with college athletes getting some kind of stipend, but I worry that this will destroy college sports as we know it.
Click to expand...
Of course it will.

But that was always the eventual outcome after the Supreme Court decided in the 80's that the NCAA has no right to restrict a school from engaging in business with its sports programs.

If the NCAA has no legal right to restrict the schools in that regard, then it has no legal right to restrict the players in the same regard. It's just taken three decades for the players to willingly step up to the legal system to have their rights defended.

The only way the system can go back to what it was is if the schools all form a gentlemen's agreement to NOT engage in business even though they have the right to. Then the rights of the players would essentially be a moot issue. Of course, this would also mean no more NCAA football on TV because the gentlemen's agreement to run sports as an amateur operation would mean no million dollar TV contracts.

As much fun as the last three decades of NCAA football have been, it's been an operation of hypocrisy that eventually has to end.

 
shader said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
That's another way to look at it. But who is going to enforce the "payscale"? If the NCAA gets blown to smithereens, why would the big schools agree to a system like this?

Easy answer is that they won't.
Click to expand...
Same reason the most popular and profitable pro teams agree to revenue sharing and salary caps rather than splintering off and forming their own leagues.

 
College sports did pretty well for themselves before the NCAA, so there's no reason to think the idea itself will collapse. I am curious to see how this will play out, and think the sliding wage idea might work.

 
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The keyword here is "student". These guys get a free four-year education, sometimes five years, and graduate without any student loans. Depending on the school, that's anywhere from $10,000 - $40,000 saved per year.

Not to mention the vast majority of players at "big time" college football schools would not otherwise be admitted as students. (IE - incoming freshman at GT have an average SAT score of, say, 1350. The average football player SAT is, say, 950.)

I'm fine with the NCAA being torn a new one, but I don't think players need to be paid.

 
Rick James said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The keyword here is "student". These guys get a free four-year education, sometimes five years, and graduate without any student loans. Depending on the school, that's anywhere from $10,000 - $40,000 saved per year.

Not to mention the vast majority of players at "big time" college football schools would not otherwise be admitted as students. (IE - incoming freshman at GT have an average SAT score of, say, 1350. The average football player SAT is, say, 950.)

I'm fine with the NCAA being torn a new one, but I don't think players need to be paid.
Click to expand...
And this opinion is useless. An accounting major that is getting a full academic scholarship can sell his books, go to lunch with partners in big accounting firms, get jobs in accounting firms while in school and are actually encouraged to do all of this. Student athletes are not allowed to do this. That is a crock and that alone means the system needs to be burned to the ground.

 
TobiasFunke said:
shader said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
That's another way to look at it. But who is going to enforce the "payscale"? If the NCAA gets blown to smithereens, why would the big schools agree to a system like this?

Easy answer is that they won't.
Click to expand...
Same reason the most popular and profitable pro teams agree to revenue sharing and salary caps rather than splintering off and forming their own leagues.
Click to expand...
Can they just make an agreement among themselves? That seems to be part of the problem now and one of the reasons they're being sued. There's no NCAA players union.

I agree with Andy Staples, the first current players to sign on to O'Bannon's suit are gonna have to be strong of constitution because the wrath of the unwashed masses is coming down on their heads. Think Curt Flood, only maybe worse.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rick James said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The keyword here is "student". These guys get a free four-year education, sometimes five years, and graduate without any student loans. Depending on the school, that's anywhere from $10,000 - $40,000 saved per year.

Not to mention the vast majority of players at "big time" college football schools would not otherwise be admitted as students. (IE - incoming freshman at GT have an average SAT score of, say, 1350. The average football player SAT is, say, 950.)

I'm fine with the NCAA being torn a new one, but I don't think players need to be paid.
Click to expand...
how many "student" atheletes at big time programs actually graduate? I'm talking the high profile studs that get their images used by the schools..

 
Rick James said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The keyword here is "student". These guys get a free four-year education, sometimes five years, and graduate without any student loans. Depending on the school, that's anywhere from $10,000 - $40,000 saved per year.

Not to mention the vast majority of players at "big time" college football schools would not otherwise be admitted as students. (IE - incoming freshman at GT have an average SAT score of, say, 1350. The average football player SAT is, say, 950.)

I'm fine with the NCAA being torn a new one, but I don't think players need to be paid.
Click to expand...
You should read the article I linked. It's long, but it's worth it.

Or just consider this: If the key word really is student, why can't athletes regain their athletic eligibility if they enter their sport's draft and aren't picked? Why is that attitude that once you decide you want to see if you can get paid to play, you're no longer allowed to be "student-athlete"? What does one have to do with the other? Or what about an athlete that comes from a very poor background- if they are in dire need of extra money to put food on their family's table and a roof over their head, why don't we allow them to do so while staying in school?

The current system does exactly the opposite of what it should do- it encourages athletes,especially poor athletes, to leave school as soon as possible. Does that sound like a good way to treat "students"? Encouraging them to cut short their education?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Parrothead said:
Rick James said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The keyword here is "student". These guys get a free four-year education, sometimes five years, and graduate without any student loans. Depending on the school, that's anywhere from $10,000 - $40,000 saved per year.

Not to mention the vast majority of players at "big time" college football schools would not otherwise be admitted as students. (IE - incoming freshman at GT have an average SAT score of, say, 1350. The average football player SAT is, say, 950.)

I'm fine with the NCAA being torn a new one, but I don't think players need to be paid.
Click to expand...
how many "student" atheletes at big time programs actually graduate? I'm talking the high profile studs that get their images used by the schools..
Click to expand...
I kind of see it this way - eligibility rules need to be revisited and a commitment to education actually needs to matter. For example, every school in the SEC except Tennessee allows a student to transfer his Juco GPA in. So a player can come in as a junior with a 3.0 (*cough*cough*) from Juco and literally not go to class for the next three semesters yet still retain eligibility to play football. That's ridiculous.

 
TobiasFunke said:
shader said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
That's another way to look at it. But who is going to enforce the "payscale"? If the NCAA gets blown to smithereens, why would the big schools agree to a system like this?

Easy answer is that they won't.
Click to expand...
Same reason the most popular and profitable pro teams agree to revenue sharing and salary caps rather than splintering off and forming their own leagues.
Click to expand...
Obviously there will be a payscale to some degree. But the Alabama/Texas/USC's of the world aren't going to enter into an agreement to make it fair for the North Texas/MTSU/Ball State's of the world. There are over 100 Div1 Schools. They will split. Texas doesn't need North Texas. The Dallas Cowboys need the Jacksonville Jaguars.

 
shader said:
TobiasFunke said:
shader said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
That's another way to look at it. But who is going to enforce the "payscale"? If the NCAA gets blown to smithereens, why would the big schools agree to a system like this?

Easy answer is that they won't.
Click to expand...
Same reason the most popular and profitable pro teams agree to revenue sharing and salary caps rather than splintering off and forming their own leagues.
Click to expand...
Obviously there will be a payscale to some degree. But the Alabama/Texas/USC's of the world aren't going to enter into an agreement to make it fair for the North Texas/MTSU/Ball State's of the world. There are over 100 Div1 Schools. They will split. Texas doesn't need North Texas. The Dallas Cowboys need the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Click to expand...
So let them split. Who cares. They're colleges, not sports franchises. How they organize themselves for intercollegiate athletics shouldn't be a big concern.

 
BigJohn said:
Why not form some type if trust, or pension-like system? Players receive royalties that are put into this account. Then, depending on when the money is withdrawn, there is a sliding scale interest rate. Much like social security. Early withdrawal penalties. You see where I'm going.

Disclaimer: I haven't read very much on this lawsuit and this may have even been mentioned before. It was just the first thing that popped into my head.
Click to expand...
Because this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to logical. It's the NCAA we are talking about here.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
Rick James said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The keyword here is "student". These guys get a free four-year education, sometimes five years, and graduate without any student loans. Depending on the school, that's anywhere from $10,000 - $40,000 saved per year.

Not to mention the vast majority of players at "big time" college football schools would not otherwise be admitted as students. (IE - incoming freshman at GT have an average SAT score of, say, 1350. The average football player SAT is, say, 950.)

I'm fine with the NCAA being torn a new one, but I don't think players need to be paid.
Click to expand...
And this opinion is useless. An accounting major that is getting a full academic scholarship can sell his books, go to lunch with partners in big accounting firms, get jobs in accounting firms while in school and are actually encouraged to do all of this. Student athletes are not allowed to do this. That is a crock and that alone means the system needs to be burned to the ground.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: The "they already get enough" argument is a stupid one and needs to cease being used in these threads. Not only have the athletes' personal likenesses been exploited by the schools but they have also been prohibited from entering into individual commercial agreements with willing participants -- which any other student at the school may do.

Personally, I favor the Olympic model for college sports. Boosters, prepare your checkbooks!

 
TobiasFunke said:
shader said:
TobiasFunke said:
shader said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
That's another way to look at it. But who is going to enforce the "payscale"? If the NCAA gets blown to smithereens, why would the big schools agree to a system like this?

Easy answer is that they won't.
Click to expand...
Same reason the most popular and profitable pro teams agree to revenue sharing and salary caps rather than splintering off and forming their own leagues.
Click to expand...
Obviously there will be a payscale to some degree. But the Alabama/Texas/USC's of the world aren't going to enter into an agreement to make it fair for the North Texas/MTSU/Ball State's of the world. There are over 100 Div1 Schools. They will split. Texas doesn't need North Texas. The Dallas Cowboys need the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Click to expand...
So let them split. Who cares. They're colleges, not sports franchises. How they organize themselves for intercollegiate athletics shouldn't be a big concern.
Click to expand...
I agree and am happy with the eventual split.

 
bosoxs45 said:
The NCAA advances these false claims of poverty so it can argue that its member schools can’t possibly afford to spend more money on sports, much less pay their athletes. O’Bannon’s lawyers put the lie to this, too, invoking foundational truths of economics dating to Adam Smith and David Ricardo: “Redistributing rents does not change true economic costs. It simply takes money from one person or group and shifts it to another.” Translation: Paying athletes wouldn’t result in schools spending additional money on sports. They would just spend less of it on coaches and facilities and more on students.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The author completely misunderstands Smith and Ricardo. What he says would not be the result would be the exact result. Rents would be redistributed not from coaches and facilities to players, but from schools to players.

 
Parrothead said:
Rick James said:
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.

I personally think it's great news. The student athlete has been exploited for way too long. Time to pay the talent.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The keyword here is "student". These guys get a free four-year education, sometimes five years, and graduate without any student loans. Depending on the school, that's anywhere from $10,000 - $40,000 saved per year.

Not to mention the vast majority of players at "big time" college football schools would not otherwise be admitted as students. (IE - incoming freshman at GT have an average SAT score of, say, 1350. The average football player SAT is, say, 950.)

I'm fine with the NCAA being torn a new one, but I don't think players need to be paid.
Click to expand...
how many "student" atheletes at big time programs actually graduate? I'm talking the high profile studs that get their images used by the schools..
Click to expand...
And how many student athletes actually graduate debt free??

 
Treynwreck3 said:
What you'll likely end up with is a wage scale, whereas there is a limit to how much a school can pay players. Not unlike a salary cap, it will help level the playing field and you won't have dynastic programs like Alabama anymore.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it would affect a programs performance. It's not like a salary cap in that a school won't pay more for 5 star kids or All Americans than they will for lesser talent, unless I'm missing something.

The successful programs/coaches will still stock more talent than lesser ones.

 
What will be interesting is the effect on the lesser programs at the schools. If it's structured so that all student athletes are paid the same stipend, schools like UNC will be impacted more than schools like Alabama because UNC has more division 1 sports costing them more money. Not singling out either of these schools...just something to consider when they start talking about paying student athletes.

 
The Commish said:
What will be interesting is the effect on the lesser programs at the schools. If it's structured so that all student athletes are paid the same stipend, schools like UNC will be impacted more than schools like Alabama because UNC has more division 1 sports costing them more money. Not singling out either of these schools...just something to consider when they start talking about paying student athletes.
Click to expand...
Why does the school have to pay anyone anything? Simply allowing them to be able to get paid by someone else is fine. If Booster bob wants to get the next Reggie Bush a job at his used car lot at a salary of $100,000.00 a year for watching TV so be it.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
The Commish said:
What will be interesting is the effect on the lesser programs at the schools. If it's structured so that all student athletes are paid the same stipend, schools like UNC will be impacted more than schools like Alabama because UNC has more division 1 sports costing them more money. Not singling out either of these schools...just something to consider when they start talking about paying student athletes.
Click to expand...
Why does the school have to pay anyone anything? Simply allowing them to be able to get paid by someone else is fine. If Booster bob wants to get the next Reggie Bush a job at his used car lot at a salary of $100,000.00 a year for watching TV so be it.
Click to expand...
Because the students are suing the schools (NCAA) for money, not suing boosters for it.

Your solution doesn't address the issue being attacked in the lawsuit, the schools use of player names and images in marketing.

 
shader said:
However, I'd be a little bit nervous if I were fans of the mid-level schools.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I think most mid-major fans are realists about the whole thing. There's 120ish D-1A football teams, but how many of those teams are functionally irrelevant every single year? I'd think there are at least 40 totally useless D-1A football teams that offer really nothing from a competitive standpoint and really don't make much of a profit, if any. Even my biggest fan-friends don't expect our alma mater to go undefeated and make a BCS bowl. Hell, I'd be happy if they could make it to The Beef.

The true "football fans" will still follow the sport even if the field contracts from 120 to 64 (4 16-team conferences?). The other fans who are just fans of their local U, their alma mater, etc. will still be fans even if the school drops to 1-AA or something like that. I suppose there is a worry that the school could drop football altogether, that'd be my bigger worry.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
The Commish said:
What will be interesting is the effect on the lesser programs at the schools. If it's structured so that all student athletes are paid the same stipend, schools like UNC will be impacted more than schools like Alabama because UNC has more division 1 sports costing them more money. Not singling out either of these schools...just something to consider when they start talking about paying student athletes.
Click to expand...
Why does the school have to pay anyone anything? Simply allowing them to be able to get paid by someone else is fine. If Booster bob wants to get the next Reggie Bush a job at his used car lot at a salary of $100,000.00 a year for watching TV so be it.
Click to expand...
My comments were being made from within the limits of the lawsuit etc...

 
Greg Russell said:
Yankee23Fan said:
The Commish said:
What will be interesting is the effect on the lesser programs at the schools. If it's structured so that all student athletes are paid the same stipend, schools like UNC will be impacted more than schools like Alabama because UNC has more division 1 sports costing them more money. Not singling out either of these schools...just something to consider when they start talking about paying student athletes.
Click to expand...
Why does the school have to pay anyone anything? Simply allowing them to be able to get paid by someone else is fine. If Booster bob wants to get the next Reggie Bush a job at his used car lot at a salary of $100,000.00 a year for watching TV so be it.
Click to expand...
Because the students are suing the schools (NCAA) for money, not suing boosters for it.

Your solution doesn't address the issue being attacked in the lawsuit, the schools use of player names and images in marketing.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think if O'Bannon wins the schools are going to have to cut the athletes in on some portion of TV revenues. This is still "getting paid," even if it's not exactly the same thing as getting a stipend. Though it seems to me the distinction may be irrelevant.

Patrick Hruby is amused by the NCAA's defense regarding TV revenues.

At the certification hearing, lawyer Gregory Curtner also argued that the association isn't profiting off college athletes via television broadcast contracts, because it isn't selling their names, images and likenesses. Nuh-uh. Instead, the NCAA is simply peddling access to its facilities. Read that again. By Curtner's logic, networks like ESPN and CBS aren't forking over billions of dollars for the exclusive rights to show athletes performing, but rather for the exclusive opportunity to lug cameras and satellite transmission equipment into arenas and stadiums during scheduled game times. As my Sports on Earth colleague Gwen Knapp argues, this is completely ludicrous -- like asserting that ESPN's College Gameday crew is simply shooting Saturday afternoon footage of the turf at Michigan Stadium, and if a bunch of football players "keep wandering into the screen, well, what are you gonna do?" -- and when Curtner made his case, he seemed to prompt a chuckle from federal judge Claudia Wilken.
Click to expand...
 
Greg Russell said:
Yankee23Fan said:
The Commish said:
What will be interesting is the effect on the lesser programs at the schools. If it's structured so that all student athletes are paid the same stipend, schools like UNC will be impacted more than schools like Alabama because UNC has more division 1 sports costing them more money. Not singling out either of these schools...just something to consider when they start talking about paying student athletes.
Click to expand...
Why does the school have to pay anyone anything? Simply allowing them to be able to get paid by someone else is fine. If Booster bob wants to get the next Reggie Bush a job at his used car lot at a salary of $100,000.00 a year for watching TV so be it.
Click to expand...
Because the students are suing the schools (NCAA) for money, not suing boosters for it.

Your solution doesn't address the issue being attacked in the lawsuit, the schools use of player names and images in marketing.
Click to expand...
No I understand that - but I thought that is where you were going because I don't see how the school using USC #5 at RB means that the girls volleyball team gets a quarter. The argument in the lawsuit is using the players likeness - not every Div 1 program is included in that.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
Who will be the next Kentucky basketball coach?
2
Replies
75
Views
2K
Long Ball Larry
Long Ball Larry
massraider
The Enhanced Games announced. 21st Century Olympics without drug testing
Replies
11
Views
294
Dr. Octopus
Dr. Octopus
Senor Schmutzig
Chicago Winter Sports Trifecta Coming Up! - Help wanted
Replies
2
Views
271
Senor Schmutzig
Senor Schmutzig

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top