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

[SHIZNITTTT]

Very interesting topic. It will be fun to watch how this all plays out.

 

[Christo]

College football players aren't volunteers.

Of course they are. You think someone is forcing them to join the teams?

That's a strange perspective. They're recruited with financial incentives. The Red Cross doesn't do that.

So? I am absolutely bumfuzzled you guys aren't getting this. It's a really easy concept. Am I being fished? I'll give this one last go. Take, for example, our military. They are recruited with financial incentives. They sign contracts. But they are considered to be volunteers as opposed to conscripts. What aren't you guys understanding?

 

[roadkill1292]

College football players aren't volunteers.

Of course they are. You think someone is forcing them to join the teams?

That's a strange perspective. They're recruited with financial incentives. The Red Cross doesn't do that.

So? I am absolutely bumfuzzled you guys aren't getting this. It's a really easy concept. Am I being fished? I'll give this one last go. Take, for example, our military. They are recruited with financial incentives. They sign contracts. But they are considered to be volunteers as opposed to conscripts. What aren't you guys understanding?

I don't understand why this word parsing is relevant. What's your point, that volunteers forfeit all their legal rights? By your definition everyone who applies for a job is a volunteer. C'mon, counselor, stop wasting our time.

 

[snellman]

Watched this the other night, was very interesting.

http://www.epixhd.com/schooled-the-price-of-college-sports/

 

[Politician Spock]

College football players aren't volunteers.

Of course they are. You think someone is forcing them to join the teams?

That's a strange perspective. They're recruited with financial incentives. The Red Cross doesn't do that.

So? I am absolutely bumfuzzled you guys aren't getting this. It's a really easy concept. Am I being fished? I'll give this one last go. Take, for example, our military. They are recruited with financial incentives. They sign contracts. But they are considered to be volunteers as opposed to conscripts. What aren't you guys understanding?

I don't understand why this word parsing is relevant. What's your point, that volunteers forfeit all their legal rights? By your definition everyone who applies for a job is a volunteer. C'mon, counselor, stop wasting our time.

Christo is fishing.

 

[Christo]

College football players aren't volunteers.

Of course they are. You think someone is forcing them to join the teams?

That's a strange perspective. They're recruited with financial incentives. The Red Cross doesn't do that.

So? I am absolutely bumfuzzled you guys aren't getting this. It's a really easy concept. Am I being fished? I'll give this one last go. Take, for example, our military. They are recruited with financial incentives. They sign contracts. But they are considered to be volunteers as opposed to conscripts. What aren't you guys understanding?

I don't understand why this word parsing is relevant. What's your point, that volunteers forfeit all their legal rights? By your definition everyone who applies for a job is a volunteer. C'mon, counselor, stop wasting our time.

Christo is fishing.

I'm not the one who thought Bilas had something important to say and then kept insisting college athletes weren't voluntarily joining their teams.

 

[Politician Spock]

College football players aren't volunteers.

Of course they are. You think someone is forcing them to join the teams?

That's a strange perspective. They're recruited with financial incentives. The Red Cross doesn't do that.

So? I am absolutely bumfuzzled you guys aren't getting this. It's a really easy concept. Am I being fished? I'll give this one last go. Take, for example, our military. They are recruited with financial incentives. They sign contracts. But they are considered to be volunteers as opposed to conscripts. What aren't you guys understanding?

I don't understand why this word parsing is relevant. What's your point, that volunteers forfeit all their legal rights? By your definition everyone who applies for a job is a volunteer. C'mon, counselor, stop wasting our time.

Christo is fishing.

I'm not the one who thought Bilas had something important to say and then kept insisting college athletes weren't voluntarily joining their teams.

Thanks. I have to go to bed and get some sleep so I'll be rested for the job I have to do tomorrow because I was forced to take it.

 

[The Commish]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

Volunteer: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

Sorry I thought we were talking about what it meant to do something voluntarily not what a volunteer was.

"I want to play football, but I don't want to do any of the things that are required to play football." That about sum up how you think it should be?

I have to assume you guys are just fishing at this point. There's a significant trait of a volunteer that you guys seem to want to ignore even though Christo put it in his definition. Volunteers do things free of any repayment. That is, there are no strings attached. There are plenty of strings attached to these athletes and it's absurd to for the NCAA to suggest otherwise.

 

[The Commish]

College football players aren't volunteers. They've entered into a contractual agreement and the issue is that the terms of the contract are illegal.

Listening to an ESPN podcast with Ivan Maisel, Andy Katz and Dana O'Neil discussing this topic and not once have they raised the issue of outside income. Which is what is gonna happen.

Did you get a chance to read the link I posted above?

 

[roadkill1292]

College football players aren't volunteers. They've entered into a contractual agreement and the issue is that the terms of the contract are illegal.

Listening to an ESPN podcast with Ivan Maisel, Andy Katz and Dana O'Neil discussing this topic and not once have they raised the issue of outside income. Which is what is gonna happen.

Did you get a chance to read the link I posted above?

The Washington Law Review paper? No, but I'll try to hit the highlights of it this weekend.

It occurred to me that the NCAA's resistance is similar in some motivations to that of the DEA opposing the legalization of marijuana -- if the rules governing college football are simplified, it nullifies a great deal of the NCAA's reason for existence, much like the DEA's budget will take a big hit when weed is legalized. After completing, or failing, in its mission, the goal of any bureaucracy ultimately becomes that of justifying it existence rather than just doing the right thing. "It's over, let's just shut it down," is never the recommendation by any head of any institution.

 

[The Commish]

College football players aren't volunteers. They've entered into a contractual agreement and the issue is that the terms of the contract are illegal.

Listening to an ESPN podcast with Ivan Maisel, Andy Katz and Dana O'Neil discussing this topic and not once have they raised the issue of outside income. Which is what is gonna happen.

Did you get a chance to read the link I posted above?

The Washington Law Review paper? No, but I'll try to hit the highlights of it this weekend.

It occurred to me that the NCAA's resistance is similar in some motivations to that of the DEA opposing the legalization of marijuana -- if the rules governing college football are simplified, it nullifies a great deal of the NCAA's reason for existence, much like the DEA's budget will take a big hit when weed is legalized. After completing, or failing, in its mission, the goal of any bureaucracy ultimately becomes that of justifying it existence rather than just doing the right thing. "It's over, let's just shut it down," is never the recommendation by any head of any institution.

There was a thread here several years back about how the NCAA is even around anymore and more importantly why these conferences choose to deal with them. A lot of what you say here was in that thread as well. I think the discussion was left at waiting to see what happens when the NCAA basketball deal was done. Shortly after that the $10 billion deal was inked by CBS and the NCAA.

 

[roadkill1292]

For giggles I looked up the 17 private schools in D1 football:

Baylor

Boston College

BYU

Duke

Miami

Northwestern

Notre Dame

Rice

Southern Cal

SMU

Stanford

Syracuse

TCU

Tulane

Tulsa

Vanderbilt

Wake Forest

I don't think the NCAA would like to lose that bunch, especially if those schools can (or must) pay players while the remaining schools can't (or won't). So while a union might not stand a very good chance of forming, it's something the schools have to be concerned about just because of the enormity of the threat.

Of course, an unchained Miami is a potential threat to the very existence of the human race on this planet.

 

[pollardsvision]

Yeah, that's plenty of firepower.

Not that it would ever happen, but if this went to a conclusion of the NW kids winning, kids from the other 16 schools following suit forming a union, and the conferences/NCAA kicking them out, I think those 17 could stand on their own.

It wouldn't happen overnight, but the top athletes would migrate towards those programs.

Boy, it would awfully hard for a good athlete to pass up going to ND, USC, Miami, or Stanford with a chance to make money off your jersey sales, plus other opportunities.

Even for the kids that would rather stay in their own region, those are pretty much spread out across the country.

 

[pollardsvision]

Actually, I'm pretty excited this completely impossible scenario.

Have a 17 team "All Pro League" with East and West Divisions working out perfectly (maybe a couple programs wouldn't be able to make it, not sure).

They wouldn't be hampered by schedule and playoff restrictions.

You could go to a 14 game schedule and do a 4 playoff that's pretty much always going to have ND and USC.

Networks would be throwing insane cash for the rights to televise this.

 

[roadkill1292]

I count about eight good to pretty good football programs in that list. Now, turn their boosters and their checkbooks directly loose upon the players and a bunch of those teams go from good/pretty good to We Stomp The Crap Out Of Alabama's Slow White Boys Every Year status.

 

[pollardsvision]

I count about eight good to pretty good football programs in that list. Now, turn their boosters and their checkbooks directly loose upon the players and a bunch of those teams go from good/pretty good to We Stomp The Crap Out Of Alabama's Slow White Boys Every Year status.

Seems about right.

ND/SC/MIA/Stanford immediately become out of this world (with Baylor and TCU not far behind).

Over time, I'd think that's where pretty much all the top talent goes, and there'd be plenty to go around.

There are some nice, natural recruiting region splits.

There's an awful lot of good HS athletes that would rather get paid than not, and they can't all go to ND/SC/MIA.

 

[Christo]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

Volunteer: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

Sorry I thought we were talking about what it meant to do something voluntarily not what a volunteer was.

"I want to play football, but I don't want to do any of the things that are required to play football." That about sum up how you think it should be?

I have to assume you guys are just fishing at this point. There's a significant trait of a volunteer that you guys seem to want to ignore even though Christo put it in his definition. Volunteers do things free of any repayment. That is, there are no strings attached. There are plenty of strings attached to these athletes and it's absurd to for the NCAA to suggest otherwise.

What you don't seem to understand is that volunteers can work for pay or not for pay. Jesus you guys are nuts.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

College football players aren't volunteers (except at Tennessee), but they are playing football voluntarily.

 

[pollardsvision]

College football players aren't volunteers (except at Tennessee), but they are playing football voluntarily.

Great. Now what are we supposed to talk about?

 

[The Commish]

That jumped the shark quickly

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

Volunteer: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

Sorry I thought we were talking about what it meant to do something voluntarily not what a volunteer was.

"I want to play football, but I don't want to do any of the things that are required to play football." That about sum up how you think it should be?

I have to assume you guys are just fishing at this point. There's a significant trait of a volunteer that you guys seem to want to ignore even though Christo put it in his definition. Volunteers do things free of any repayment. That is, there are no strings attached. There are plenty of strings attached to these athletes and it's absurd to for the NCAA to suggest otherwise.

And yet they can walk away at any time.

Doing something voluntarily doesn't mean that you're doing it with no strings attached. It doesn't always mean you're doing it completely for free.

For example, I tried to volunteer for Doctors Without Borders but there were waaaaay too many strings attached about actually being a doctor. Bunch of bull#### in my opinion, but whatever.

 

[Politician Spock]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

Volunteer: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

Sorry I thought we were talking about what it meant to do something voluntarily not what a volunteer was.

"I want to play football, but I don't want to do any of the things that are required to play football." That about sum up how you think it should be?

I have to assume you guys are just fishing at this point. There's a significant trait of a volunteer that you guys seem to want to ignore even though Christo put it in his definition. Volunteers do things free of any repayment. That is, there are no strings attached. There are plenty of strings attached to these athletes and it's absurd to for the NCAA to suggest otherwise.

And yet they can walk away at any time.

Doing something voluntarily doesn't mean that you're doing it with no strings attached. It doesn't always mean you're doing it completely for free.

For example, I tried to volunteer for Doctors Without Borders but there were waaaaay too many strings attached about actually being a doctor. Bunch of bull#### in my opinion, but whatever.

So an "at will" job is entered into voluntarily. So what?

Most of Wal-mart's employee's are "at will", They still have rights and can sue Wal-mart for violating them.

The ideal that if they don't like how Wal-mart treats them, then they can just leave and not work for Wal-mart is a red herring. It's an ideal that has zero value in a court room. The ideal that if athletes don't like how colleges treat them, then they can just leave and not work for the colleges is the same red herring.

The colleges have never based their financial operation on the belief that the athletes are volunteers anyway. Their basis has always been that they are amatuers, and thus not worthy of being compensated (and somehow a scholarship, room, and board is NOT compensation).

 

[roadkill1292]

The "like it or lump it" argument has never been a valid one. It certainly doesn't excuse wage-fixing and even the colleges aren't going to use it as a defense when these issues go to trial. So everybody who keeps using it should just stop wasting our time.

 

[Politician Spock]

The "like it or lump it" argument has never been a valid one. It certainly doesn't excuse wage-fixing and even the colleges aren't going to use it as a defense when these issues go to trial. So everybody who keeps using it should just stop wasting our time.

The "like it or lump it" argument is a key reason why unions exist. Companies making huge revenues, but paying those who produce it for them **** wages because of their "like it or lump it" belief, is exactly why workers need the right to collectively bargain.

I know you don't think this is what the issue is, and I agree there are many issues at play here. But this one seems the most basic to me, and the issue that requres the least intrusive government response. The government doesn't have to tell colleges how to run their sports business. All the government has to do is protect the athletes right to collectively bargain, and the athletes and the schools with negotiate fair compensation on their own. Worst case scenario, they call on government to arbitrate.

That negotiation would also likely determine if the athletes can earn revenue elsewhere or not. In less proftible confrences, the CBA might allow it. In the SEC, probably not.

In the grand scheme of things, it's stupid to think people who run a billion dollar industry can come up with employment rules that are fair to the employees, without including the employees in the rules decision. This is true of any industry where the organizations are bringing in billions.

 

[Christo]

The "like it or lump it" argument has never been a valid one. It certainly doesn't excuse wage-fixing and even the colleges aren't going to use it as a defense when these issues go to trial. So everybody who keeps using it should just stop wasting our time.

What we have here people is a classic red-herring. As far as I know, no one here has made the "like it or lump it argument." This all started with Commish's posting of Bilas' silly argument that athletes aren't athletes "voluntarily." A position that even you thought wasn't really a good point.

 

[roadkill1292]

The "like it or lump it" argument has never been a valid one. It certainly doesn't excuse wage-fixing and even the colleges aren't going to use it as a defense when these issues go to trial. So everybody who keeps using it should just stop wasting our time.

What we have here people is a classic red-herring. As far as I know, no one here has made the "like it or lump it argument." This all started with Commish's posting of Bilas' silly argument that athletes aren't athletes "voluntarily." A position that even you thought wasn't really a good point.

We're in agreement then. It'll be a non-issue from here on out.

 

[Christo]

The "like it or lump it" argument has never been a valid one. It certainly doesn't excuse wage-fixing and even the colleges aren't going to use it as a defense when these issues go to trial. So everybody who keeps using it should just stop wasting our time.

What we have here people is a classic red-herring. As far as I know, no one here has made the "like it or lump it argument." This all started with Commish's posting of Bilas' silly argument that athletes aren't athletes "voluntarily." A position that even you thought wasn't really a good point.

We're in agreement then. It'll be a non-issue from here on out.

Until some idiot claims that playing CFB isn't voluntary.

 

[The Commish]

The "like it or lump it" argument has never been a valid one. It certainly doesn't excuse wage-fixing and even the colleges aren't going to use it as a defense when these issues go to trial. So everybody who keeps using it should just stop wasting our time.

What we have here people is a classic red-herring. As far as I know, no one here has made the "like it or lump it argument." This all started with Commish's posting of Bilas' silly argument that athletes aren't athletes "voluntarily." A position that even you thought wasn't really a good point.

This all started with the NCAA asserting that these players were volunteers and Bilas' reaction to that assertion. They are as much a volunteer to their schools as I am to my employer I haven't seen an actual argument come from Bilas, though I am reading through the paper I linked above. That's much more of an argument.

 

[Politician Spock]

The "like it or lump it" argument has never been a valid one. It certainly doesn't excuse wage-fixing and even the colleges aren't going to use it as a defense when these issues go to trial. So everybody who keeps using it should just stop wasting our time.

What we have here people is a classic red-herring. As far as I know, no one here has made the "like it or lump it argument." This all started with Commish's posting of Bilas' silly argument that athletes aren't athletes "voluntarily." A position that even you thought wasn't really a good point.

We're in agreement then. It'll be a non-issue from here on out.

Until some idiot claims that playing CFB isn't voluntary.

College football players are not volunteers anymore than a cashier at the college's book store is a voluneer. They are both compensated by the college for a job they voluntarily agreed to perform and be compensated for, and can voluntarily quit at any time.

 

[Christo]

 

[The Commish]

The "like it or lump it" argument has never been a valid one. It certainly doesn't excuse wage-fixing and even the colleges aren't going to use it as a defense when these issues go to trial. So everybody who keeps using it should just stop wasting our time.

What we have here people is a classic red-herring. As far as I know, no one here has made the "like it or lump it argument." This all started with Commish's posting of Bilas' silly argument that athletes aren't athletes "voluntarily." A position that even you thought wasn't really a good point.

We're in agreement then. It'll be a non-issue from here on out.

Until some idiot claims that playing CFB isn't voluntary.

College football players are not volunteers anymore than a cashier at the college's book store is a voluneer. They are both compensated by the college for a job they voluntarily agreed to perform and be compensated for, and can voluntarily quit at any time.

but can't go somewhere else unless the school lets them.

 

[Leroy's Aces]

I just watched Schooled: The Price of College Sports, available on Netflix streaming. It is an excellent documentary on this very topic and spends a few minutes on the lawsuit in question.

 

[roadkill1292]

Here's Stuart Mandel's report on yesterday's hearing in which both parties asked for summary judgment.

The highlights:

1. Judge Wilken asks the schools how they can claim First Amendment rights (by broadcasting the games without having to pay the participants) when they sell exclusivity to those broadcast rights. If it's a "news" event, how can you sell the rights?

2. She also had a "problem" with the NCAA's insistence that letting athletes make money will cause a competitiveness problem and suggested that a better alternative to solving competitiveness issues would be to impose a limit on coaches' salaries. Lololol. I like that a lot. I think about $250,000 would be a reasonable number seeing how much money they help bring in. If they want to make more, they could always try to get a job in the NFL.

3. Finally, in refusing both pleas for summary judgment and pretty much guaranteeing a trial in June, Wilken brushed aside the NCAA's arguments about the importance of amateurism, saying "I don't think amateurism is going to be a useful word here."

Plaintiff's attorney re-iterated, for all the less complicated people who have trouble with the details, that plaintiffs are not seeking payment by the schools, just the freedom to enjoy the benefits of the open market that everyone else has.

 

[TobiasFunke]

A little out of the spotlight because baseball is a low-profile NCAA sport, but there's a brewing controversy about the NCAA's dumb rules regarding athlete representation. It's a story because the Phillies ratted out two kids they drafted but couldn't sign to the NCAA for having agents participate in the negotiations. But because of the story, people are talking and writing about how silly it is for the NCAA to tell the kids (whose interest it supposedly protects) that they can't have legal representation when the negotiate with billion dollar businesses about their future. They might come under fire for their governance of a third sport in addition to the two revenue sports.

 

[The Commish]

A little out of the spotlight because baseball is a low-profile NCAA sport, but there's a brewing controversy about the NCAA's dumb rules regarding athlete representation. It's a story because the Phillies ratted out two kids they drafted but couldn't sign to the NCAA for having agents participate in the negotiations. But because of the story, people are talking and writing about how silly it is for the NCAA to tell the kids (whose interest it supposedly protects) that they can't have legal representation when the negotiate with billion dollar businesses about their future. They might come under fire for their governance of a third sport in addition to the two revenue sports.

Details? What are the negotiations with the NCAA? The Phillies were helping two kids with scholarships?

ETA: Nevermind....read it a couple more times. Agents got in the way of the Phillies signing two kids and the Phillies told the NCAA on them. Yes? These kids ended up going to college instead?

 

[TobiasFunke]

A little out of the spotlight because baseball is a low-profile NCAA sport, but there's a brewing controversy about the NCAA's dumb rules regarding athlete representation. It's a story because the Phillies ratted out two kids they drafted but couldn't sign to the NCAA for having agents participate in the negotiations. But because of the story, people are talking and writing about how silly it is for the NCAA to tell the kids (whose interest it supposedly protects) that they can't have legal representation when the negotiate with billion dollar businesses about their future. They might come under fire for their governance of a third sport in addition to the two revenue sports.

Details? What are the negotiations with the NCAA? The Phillies were helping two kids with scholarships?

ETA: Nevermind....read it a couple more times. Agents got in the way of the Phillies signing two kids and the Phillies told the NCAA on them. Yes? These kids ended up going to college instead?

Mostly, yeah, except these kids were already in college and were drafted as juniors but didn't sign. Apparently every college prospect has an "advisor" and they're not supposed to negotiate directly with the club but they all do anyway (as they should). Everyone just kind of accepted it and didn't mention it until this but now this story has made people aware that the NCAA rules actually require students to act against their best interests in order to keep eligibility.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Burn it. Burn it all.

I can't wait for the NCAA press conference at the end of the day when the current system dies its necessary death and the spokesman collapses from the stress like the death penalty on SMU. I don't wish Emmert any medical problems, but I wouldn't mind seeing him just lose it in a presser either.

Good on the judge with that final question on amateurism though. If the NCAA was wise and wanted to exist anymore in anything like their current setup (ie, making a crapton of money) they need to work out a deal now that lets players get paid anything by a third party that they can in the free market like any other student would, and then you simply require a registry of the people and business that given the jobs and the benefits so that you can monitor the only real problem it could create and that's points shaving and illegal gambling. But that isn't hard.

 

[roadkill1292]

Burn it. Burn it all.

I can't wait for the NCAA press conference at the end of the day when the current system dies its necessary death and the spokesman collapses from the stress like the death penalty on SMU. I don't wish Emmert any medical problems, but I wouldn't mind seeing him just lose it in a presser either.

Good on the judge with that final question on amateurism though. If the NCAA was wise and wanted to exist anymore in anything like their current setup (ie, making a crapton of money) they need to work out a deal now that lets players get paid anything by a third party that they can in the free market like any other student would, and then you simply require a registry of the people and business that given the jobs and the benefits so that you can monitor the only real problem it could create and that's points shaving and illegal gambling. But that isn't hard.

Universities employ tons of people whose main responsibility is to conduct business operations pretty much like any other business entity. I worked 35 years in the private sector before going to work for a small college and the differences in business conduct is insubstantial. Point being that they can handle it, they're not being asked to tackle a task substantially different from the thousands of business tasks they tackle now. Assisting students, especially students engaged in raising revenues for the university, is well within their area of expertise.

The NCAA opposition to O'Bannon has never been about anything other than control of its labor force. Uh, volunteers.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Burn it. Burn it all.

I can't wait for the NCAA press conference at the end of the day when the current system dies its necessary death and the spokesman collapses from the stress like the death penalty on SMU. I don't wish Emmert any medical problems, but I wouldn't mind seeing him just lose it in a presser either.

Good on the judge with that final question on amateurism though. If the NCAA was wise and wanted to exist anymore in anything like their current setup (ie, making a crapton of money) they need to work out a deal now that lets players get paid anything by a third party that they can in the free market like any other student would, and then you simply require a registry of the people and business that given the jobs and the benefits so that you can monitor the only real problem it could create and that's points shaving and illegal gambling. But that isn't hard.

Universities employ tons of people whose main responsibility is to conduct business operations pretty much like any other business entity. I worked 35 years in the private sector before going to work for a small college and the differences in business conduct is insubstantial. Point being that they can handle it, they're not being asked to tackle a task substantially different from the thousands of business tasks they tackle now. Assisting students, especially students engaged in raising revenues for the university, is well within their area of expertise.

The NCAA opposition to O'Bannon has never been about anything other than control of its labor force. Uh, volunteers.

Agree wholeheartedly. The current NCAA needs to be deconstructed by force if necessary. Good on these plaintiff's for finally standing up to this moronic institution.

The funny thing is, the NCAA was originally created for only one purpose - player safety. Kids were getting killed playing college football in the early part of the 20th century and the NCAA was formed to come up with safety rules that governed the entirety of the sport. What it is now is nothing it was designed for and is no better than a mafia family.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's a good writeup of the baseball agent thing. Started as a Phillies story but now people are focusing on on the real villain, the NCAA.

 

[The Commish]

A little out of the spotlight because baseball is a low-profile NCAA sport, but there's a brewing controversy about the NCAA's dumb rules regarding athlete representation. It's a story because the Phillies ratted out two kids they drafted but couldn't sign to the NCAA for having agents participate in the negotiations. But because of the story, people are talking and writing about how silly it is for the NCAA to tell the kids (whose interest it supposedly protects) that they can't have legal representation when the negotiate with billion dollar businesses about their future. They might come under fire for their governance of a third sport in addition to the two revenue sports.

Details? What are the negotiations with the NCAA? The Phillies were helping two kids with scholarships?

ETA: Nevermind....read it a couple more times. Agents got in the way of the Phillies signing two kids and the Phillies told the NCAA on them. Yes? These kids ended up going to college instead?

Mostly, yeah, except these kids were already in college and were drafted as juniors but didn't sign. Apparently every college prospect has an "advisor" and they're not supposed to negotiate directly with the club but they all do anyway (as they should). Everyone just kind of accepted it and didn't mention it until this but now this story has made people aware that the NCAA rules actually require students to act against their best interests in order to keep eligibility.

Do they get their own "advisors" or are they appointed by the schools in this case? I know a few guys and their treck's to MLB, but none of them used an agent for their minor league contracts. All of them did their own thing initially, then hired agents after they were on a roster.

 

[Politician Spock]

Burn it. Burn it all.

I can't wait for the NCAA press conference at the end of the day when the current system dies its necessary death and the spokesman collapses from the stress like the death penalty on SMU. I don't wish Emmert any medical problems, but I wouldn't mind seeing him just lose it in a presser either.

Good on the judge with that final question on amateurism though. If the NCAA was wise and wanted to exist anymore in anything like their current setup (ie, making a crapton of money) they need to work out a deal now that lets players get paid anything by a third party that they can in the free market like any other student would, and then you simply require a registry of the people and business that given the jobs and the benefits so that you can monitor the only real problem it could create and that's points shaving and illegal gambling. But that isn't hard.

Universities employ tons of people whose main responsibility is to conduct business operations pretty much like any other business entity. I worked 35 years in the private sector before going to work for a small college and the differences in business conduct is insubstantial. Point being that they can handle it, they're not being asked to tackle a task substantially different from the thousands of business tasks they tackle now. Assisting students, especially students engaged in raising revenues for the university, is well within their area of expertise.

The NCAA opposition to O'Bannon has never been about anything other than control of its labor force. Uh, volunteers.

[cartman]

Uh, stooo-dent ath-o-leats

[/cartman]

 

[roadkill1292]

In 1998 the NCAA passed a rule requiring schools to have one assistant basketball coaching position designated as "restricted earnings" with a salary limited to $16,000. Some coaches sued and won, citing the Sherman Act as the basis for overturning it.

It would be pretty amusing if this same case returned to bite the NCAA (and the coaches) in the ### when Judge Wilken asks them to explain exactly why it is they attempt to govern the otherwise legal activities of college athletes.

 

[gump]

Interesting note to me...while the NCAA claims the largest fan base (200M), they are second to MLB in total licensed revenue.

The big differences are a longer season and Player Rights.

 

[The Commish]

Preview of what's to come

 

[roadkill1292]

Here comes the next group of plaintiffs with a heavyweight lawyer. This group appears to be aiming at a much wider target than O'Bannon's team. They're going to make the schools very specifically defend their policies of not allowing scholarship athletes to earn income from outside sources.

They also seem to be trying to quantify the market value of athletes versus the value of the scholarship, citing a Drexel study that shows the average football player to have a market value of $120,000 (basketball $265,000) while the average scholarship has a value of $23,000.

None of which is particularly new or even in dispute by anyone. But it forces the schools to defend (and seek court approval for) their "we're special and not subject to restraint of trade rules" claims.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Keep chipping away. ...

 

[The Commish]

Heard this on the radio on the way into the office

 

[Sand]

You will see Women's Feild Hockey and other non-revenue sports fold up shop though, or else those players will need to pony up and pay to play. The revenue making sports won't be able to fund them.

No doubt. I can see a huge reduction in the fielded sports if all monies generated from football have to be turned inward rather than support other sports or Title IX mandates. Honestly I see men's basketball staying - most places it is mildly to very profitable. What gets cut? Likely everything else that isn't profitable - baseball, hockey, lacrosse, soccer, men's crew, track and field, gymnastics, swimming/diving, softball, etc. i.e. Pretty much everything else. What else survives? For Title IX likely women's basketball and women's crew (crew involves lots of girls at low cost, which is why it has grown so much).

Kinda sucks when you think about it.

 

[roadkill1292]

Grantland's Andrew Sharp gets it about endorsements. And then offers up a creative and unconventional suggestion for the NBA and college basketball.

Summary:

1. NBA commish Adam Silver wants college players to stay in school for longer than one year, hence the league's impending age limit rules

2. Colleges want stars to stay in school for more than one year because star power at your school means big bucks

3. Solution: NBA joins the Kessler lawsuit against the NCAA. NBA offers the schools an age limit that pretty much forces players to stay in school longer while the schools let players earn outside money to head off any lawsuits against the NBA's legally questionable age limit rule.