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

[The Commish]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good Lord.

 

[The Commish]

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's my other question. We are talking about player likenesses etc, but does Title 9 play a role in this in any way? The "equal pay to all athletes" approach could affect this, no? This is why I always thought a solution like BigJohn proposed made the most sense.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's my other question. We are talking about player likenesses etc, but does Title 9 play a role in this in any way? The "equal pay to all athletes" approach could affect this, no? This is why I always thought a solution like BigJohn proposed made the most sense.

It would seem to me that the easiest way to deal with it is to not have the colleges pay the players anything but allow them to profit off of their own likeness and life, just like every other student is allowed to. If Georgia WR wants to and is able to have lunch with Deion Sanders to talk football, and Deion pays for it - great. That's mentoring. Something every other student in college is not only allowed to do but encouraged in the strongest possible sense. The colleges don't have to pay them anything.

Although it makes video games interesting. Eh, the whole thing is stupid. What we need to do is come to the realization that mens college football and basketball is not and never will be again an amateur sport. It's a business like any other only the players are students instead of grown men (and even that distinction isn't correct).

 

[Sarnoff]

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.

"Destroying college sports as we know it" is probably a good thing.

The NCAA is a bunch of extortionists anyway. They have no real authority, but they wield the March Madness TV money over all the schools like a cudgel. They need to be taken out.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

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.

"Destroying college sports as we know it" is probably a good thing.

The NCAA is a bunch of extortionists anyway. They have no real authority, but they wield the March Madness TV money over all the schools like a cudgel. They need to be taken out.

The rest of the world seems to do fine w/o college sports. Plenty of pro sports out there.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

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.

"Destroying college sports as we know it" is probably a good thing.

The NCAA is a bunch of extortionists anyway. They have no real authority, but they wield the March Madness TV money over all the schools like a cudgel. They need to be taken out.

The rest of the world seems to do fine w/o college sports. Plenty of pro sports out there.

This. College should be for learning.

 

[Politician Spock]

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.

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.

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.

It's an anti-trust lawsuit, which means it's not only about past damages (money for selling their likeness), but also about how the NCAA has violated anti-trust laws by having implemented collusive practices in restraint of trade. As others have stated well already in the thread, the NCAA has restrianed student athletes from engaging in the same activities of trade that all college students are free to engage in, such as being employed while being a student, selling their own property, etc, etc...

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I can't wait for this.

 

[PatsFanCT]

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.

Oh I don't know. Maybe FREE tuition?

 

[PatsFanCT]

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.

"Destroying college sports as we know it" is probably a good thing.

The NCAA is a bunch of extortionists anyway. They have no real authority, but they wield the March Madness TV money over all the schools like a cudgel. They need to be taken out.

The rest of the world seems to do fine w/o college sports. Plenty of pro sports out there.

This. College should be for learning.

 

[roadkill1292]

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's my other question. We are talking about player likenesses etc, but does Title 9 play a role in this in any way? The "equal pay to all athletes" approach could affect this, no? This is why I always thought a solution like BigJohn proposed made the most sense.

It would seem to me that the easiest way to deal with it is to not have the colleges pay the players anything but allow them to profit off of their own likeness and life, just like every other student is allowed to. If Georgia WR wants to and is able to have lunch with Deion Sanders to talk football, and Deion pays for it - great. That's mentoring. Something every other student in college is not only allowed to do but encouraged in the strongest possible sense. The colleges don't have to pay them anything.

Although it makes video games interesting. Eh, the whole thing is stupid. What we need to do is come to the realization that mens college football and basketball is not and never will be again an amateur sport. It's a business like any other only the players are students instead of grown men (and even that distinction isn't correct).

Couldn't the schools also avoid discrimination charges by agreeing to share TV revenues with athletes on a sport-by-sport basis? The football players could get the same percentage of football TV revenues as the volleyball players get of volleyball TV revenues. "Hey, it's not our fault Local channel 54 is only paying us a case of sneakers for televising the field hockey games."

It's encouraging to see so many posters here thinking in non-traditional ways (even if I suspect six or eight of you are Tanner aliai) but I don't think this thread reflects the views of most college football loyalists. Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

 

[Tom Servo]

Good. It should burn down.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

 

[T Bell]

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?

I'd actually love a promotion-relegation system. It won't happen, but this would be the time to do it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's encouraging to see so many posters here thinking in non-traditional ways (even if I suspect six or eight of you are Tanner aliai) but I don't think this thread reflects the views of most college football loyalists. Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

I think this is one of those issues where the public is slowly shifting. It's gonna take time. I know I used to be one of those people who just had a knee-jerk reaction that any time a player took an improper benefit it was "wrong" and that the kids who stayed in school were somehow better than the ones who went pro early and so on. It took things like the O"Bannon lawsuit and Jay Bilas and that article to make me question the conventional wisdom and realize how paternalistic and stupid and bad for the kids it was. Can't say for sure, but I think public opinion has definitely shifted on paying these kids and loosening the NCAA's dumb eligibility rules, and I think it's gonna keep moving in that direction.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's my other question. We are talking about player likenesses etc, but does Title 9 play a role in this in any way? The "equal pay to all athletes" approach could affect this, no? This is why I always thought a solution like BigJohn proposed made the most sense.

It would seem to me that the easiest way to deal with it is to not have the colleges pay the players anything but allow them to profit off of their own likeness and life, just like every other student is allowed to. If Georgia WR wants to and is able to have lunch with Deion Sanders to talk football, and Deion pays for it - great. That's mentoring. Something every other student in college is not only allowed to do but encouraged in the strongest possible sense. The colleges don't have to pay them anything.

Although it makes video games interesting. Eh, the whole thing is stupid. What we need to do is come to the realization that mens college football and basketball is not and never will be again an amateur sport. It's a business like any other only the players are students instead of grown men (and even that distinction isn't correct).

Couldn't the schools also avoid discrimination charges by agreeing to share TV revenues with athletes on a sport-by-sport basis? The football players could get the same percentage of football TV revenues as the volleyball players get of volleyball TV revenues. "Hey, it's not our fault Local channel 54 is only paying us a case of sneakers for televising the field hockey games."

It's encouraging to see so many posters here thinking in non-traditional ways (even if I suspect six or eight of you are Tanner aliai) but I don't think this thread reflects the views of most college football loyalists. Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

College football and mens college basketball should be exempt from any Title iX federal oversight when it comes to treating college sports equally because they aren't equal. They are more important, period.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Good. It should burn down.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Yeah that's me. The anarchist.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

It's encouraging to see so many posters here thinking in non-traditional ways (even if I suspect six or eight of you are Tanner aliai) but I don't think this thread reflects the views of most college football loyalists. Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

I think this is one of those issues where the public is slowly shifting. It's gonna take time. I know I used to be one of those people who just had a knee-jerk reaction that any time a player took an improper benefit it was "wrong" and that the kids who stayed in school were somehow better than the ones who went pro early and so on. It took things like the O"Bannon lawsuit and Jay Bilas and that article to make me question the conventional wisdom and realize how paternalistic and stupid and bad for the kids it was. Can't say for sure, but I think public opinion has definitely shifted on paying these kids and loosening the NCAA's dumb eligibility rules, and I think it's gonna keep moving in that direction.

I think blogs like Deadspin are helping shift perception (if slowly) as well.

 

[gump]

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.

"Destroying college sports as we know it" is probably a good thing.

The NCAA is a bunch of extortionists anyway. They have no real authority, but they wield the March Madness TV money over all the schools like a cudgel. They need to be taken out.

The rest of the world seems to do fine w/o college sports. Plenty of pro sports out there.

College numbers are more difficult to quote, because there are multiple licensing agencies, private institutions, etc. But it's at worst the second largest sports entity behind the NFL.

 

[The Commish]

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's my other question. We are talking about player likenesses etc, but does Title 9 play a role in this in any way? The "equal pay to all athletes" approach could affect this, no? This is why I always thought a solution like BigJohn proposed made the most sense.

It would seem to me that the easiest way to deal with it is to not have the colleges pay the players anything but allow them to profit off of their own likeness and life, just like every other student is allowed to. If Georgia WR wants to and is able to have lunch with Deion Sanders to talk football, and Deion pays for it - great. That's mentoring. Something every other student in college is not only allowed to do but encouraged in the strongest possible sense. The colleges don't have to pay them anything.

Although it makes video games interesting. Eh, the whole thing is stupid. What we need to do is come to the realization that mens college football and basketball is not and never will be again an amateur sport. It's a business like any other only the players are students instead of grown men (and even that distinction isn't correct).

Couldn't the schools also avoid discrimination charges by agreeing to share TV revenues with athletes on a sport-by-sport basis? The football players could get the same percentage of football TV revenues as the volleyball players get of volleyball TV revenues. "Hey, it's not our fault Local channel 54 is only paying us a case of sneakers for televising the field hockey games."

It's encouraging to see so many posters here thinking in non-traditional ways (even if I suspect six or eight of you are Tanner aliai) but I don't think this thread reflects the views of most college football loyalists. Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

College football and mens college basketball should be exempt from any Title iX federal oversight when it comes to treating college sports equally because they aren't equal. They are more important, period.

I'd be on board with this...I was just wondering how title ix (as written) would come into play (or if it would). Sounds like it would need to be changed or as you suggest, football/basketball be made exempt for the purposes of these discussions.

 

[shader]

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's my other question. We are talking about player likenesses etc, but does Title 9 play a role in this in any way? The "equal pay to all athletes" approach could affect this, no? This is why I always thought a solution like BigJohn proposed made the most sense.

It would seem to me that the easiest way to deal with it is to not have the colleges pay the players anything but allow them to profit off of their own likeness and life, just like every other student is allowed to. If Georgia WR wants to and is able to have lunch with Deion Sanders to talk football, and Deion pays for it - great. That's mentoring. Something every other student in college is not only allowed to do but encouraged in the strongest possible sense. The colleges don't have to pay them anything.Although it makes video games interesting. Eh, the whole thing is stupid. What we need to do is come to the realization that mens college football and basketball is not and never will be again an amateur sport. It's a business like any other only the players are students instead of grown men (and even that distinction isn't correct).

Treat them like grown men. That's what they are.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

lol @ but but but FREE TUITION!

 

[roadkill1292]

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?

I'd actually love a promotion-relegation system. It won't happen, but this would be the time to do it.

YES.

But where were you when I was getting pummeled in this thread?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

if I want to see kids playing ball I'll go down to the park

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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.

"Destroying college sports as we know it" is probably a good thing.

The NCAA is a bunch of extortionists anyway. They have no real authority, but they wield the March Madness TV money over all the schools like a cudgel. They need to be taken out.

The rest of the world seems to do fine w/o college sports. Plenty of pro sports out there.

This. College should be for learning.

You shut your whore mouth!

 

[Slapdash]

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.

"Destroying college sports as we know it" is probably a good thing.

The NCAA is a bunch of extortionists anyway. They have no real authority, but they wield the March Madness TV money over all the schools like a cudgel. They need to be taken out.

The rest of the world seems to do fine w/o college sports. Plenty of pro sports out there.

This. College should be for learning.

But it isn't

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

I think this is one of those issues where the public is slowly shifting. It's gonna take time.

I don't think public opinion really matters. College sports will get an exemption because colleges have become a well-organized special interest with a decent amount of congressional influence.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

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.

"Destroying college sports as we know it" is probably a good thing.

The NCAA is a bunch of extortionists anyway. They have no real authority, but they wield the March Madness TV money over all the schools like a cudgel. They need to be taken out.

The rest of the world seems to do fine w/o college sports. Plenty of pro sports out there.

This. College should be for learning.

You shut your whore mouth!

lol @ but but but FREE TUITION!

Hello, exactly.

 

[Politician Spock]

It's encouraging to see so many posters here thinking in non-traditional ways (even if I suspect six or eight of you are Tanner aliai) but I don't think this thread reflects the views of most college football loyalists. Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

I think this is one of those issues where the public is slowly shifting. It's gonna take time. I know I used to be one of those people who just had a knee-jerk reaction that any time a player took an improper benefit it was "wrong" and that the kids who stayed in school were somehow better than the ones who went pro early and so on. It took things like the O"Bannon lawsuit and Jay Bilas and that article to make me question the conventional wisdom and realize how paternalistic and stupid and bad for the kids it was. Can't say for sure, but I think public opinion has definitely shifted on paying these kids and loosening the NCAA's dumb eligibility rules, and I think it's gonna keep moving in that direction.

I think blogs like Deadspin are helping shift perception (if slowly) as well.

South Park's episode where Cartman was trying to get the Univeristy of Colrado's secrets on how they don't have to pay their "slaves" was pretty good too.

 

[Slapdash]

It's encouraging to see so many posters here thinking in non-traditional ways (even if I suspect six or eight of you are Tanner aliai) but I don't think this thread reflects the views of most college football loyalists. Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

I think this is one of those issues where the public is slowly shifting. It's gonna take time. I know I used to be one of those people who just had a knee-jerk reaction that any time a player took an improper benefit it was "wrong" and that the kids who stayed in school were somehow better than the ones who went pro early and so on. It took things like the O"Bannon lawsuit and Jay Bilas and that article to make me question the conventional wisdom and realize how paternalistic and stupid and bad for the kids it was. Can't say for sure, but I think public opinion has definitely shifted on paying these kids and loosening the NCAA's dumb eligibility rules, and I think it's gonna keep moving in that direction.

I think blogs like Deadspin are helping shift perception (if slowly) as well.

South Park's episode where Cartman was trying to get the Univeristy of Colrado's secrets on how they don't have to pay their "slaves" was pretty good too.

Stu-dent Ath-o-letes?

 

[Dickie Dunn]

So, we're basically saying that everything should be funded by boosters and which schools have the ones with the deepest pockets?

That might be good for the athletes, but I can easily see that turning ugly.

 

[roadkill1292]

Gary Roberts, the Dean of Law at Indiana, was quoted as saying that public pressure, which will favor the status quo, hasn't come into play yet and when it does it will be a powerful influence upon Congress to give college football some sort of exemption.

I think this is one of those issues where the public is slowly shifting. It's gonna take time.

I don't think public opinion really matters. College sports will get an exemption because colleges have become a well-organized special interest with a decent amount of congressional influence.

Yeah, in my effort to be concise, I left off Roberts mentioning that as well. He was of the opinion that schools like Alabama will even use popular coaches like Saban to glad hand around Washington and politicians will indeed be influenced.

If public support is shifting, as several posters have opined, then it's happening slowly. Read the comments at the end of any article where the author advocates for athletes to have the freedom to sell their services outside of the program and you'll see opponents outnumbering supporters by huge margins. This thread is an aberration. But, you know, Avery Brundage once opposed professionalism on the grounds that it would just kill the Olympics.

 

[roadkill1292]

So, we're basically saying that everything should be funded by boosters and which schools have the ones with the deepest pockets?

That might be good for the athletes, but I can easily see that turning ugly.

I think it will be more like schools which can cooperate most efficiently with boosters will have the greatest success on the field. At some (most?) of the big programs, it will indeed be terribly messy, which is not a rationalization for the prohibitions against student athletes' outside earnings.

 

[Christo]

Didn't we already do this?

 

[roadkill1292]

Six current football players joined the plaintiffs today. The next couple of weeks ought to be pretty interesting.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Six current football players joined the plaintiffs today. The next couple of weeks ought to be pretty interesting.

Good stuff. Best of luck to those guys. Judging from that Atlantic article, the NCAA typically doesn't look upon such acts of "treason" lightly.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

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?

I'd actually love a promotion-relegation system. It won't happen, but this would be the time to do it.

RK just ejaculated.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

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?

I'd actually love a promotion-relegation system. It won't happen, but this would be the time to do it.

YES.

But where were you when I was getting pummeled in this thread?

ta-da.

 

[roadkill1292]

Six current football players joined the plaintiffs today. The next couple of weeks ought to be pretty interesting.

Good stuff. Best of luck to those guys. Judging from that Atlantic article, the NCAA typically doesn't look upon such acts of "treason" lightly.

I think O'Bannon's team asked the NCAA for a written guarantee that there would be no recriminations against any current players who signed up and the NCAA's lawyers claimed to be pretty offended by the request and refused to sign. Proof will be in the pudding. It would be helpful if a couple hundred more would sign on, safety in numbers and all that. As it is, these six guys are gonna be reamed online by millions of numbnuts.

 

[roadkill1292]

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?

I'd actually love a promotion-relegation system. It won't happen, but this would be the time to do it.

YES.

But where were you when I was getting pummeled in this thread?

ta-da.

 

[GregR]

Six current football players joined the plaintiffs today. The next couple of weeks ought to be pretty interesting.

Good stuff. Best of luck to those guys. Judging from that Atlantic article, the NCAA typically doesn't look upon such acts of "treason" lightly.

I think O'Bannon's team asked the NCAA for a written guarantee that there would be no recriminations against any current players who signed up and the NCAA's lawyers claimed to be pretty offended by the request and refused to sign. Proof will be in the pudding. It would be helpful if a couple hundred more would sign on, safety in numbers and all that. As it is, these six guys are gonna be reamed online by millions of numbnuts.

To be fair, the lawyers asked the NCAA to guarantee the behavior of people the NCAA doesn't have control over. It would be like you being president of a homeowners association and asked to legally guarantee that none of your residents would commit some action. Just because they belong to your association and you manage some aspects that relate to them doesn't mean you are in a position to legally guarantee their behavior, even in an area related to what the HOA does.

 

[roadkill1292]

Six current football players joined the plaintiffs today. The next couple of weeks ought to be pretty interesting.

Good stuff. Best of luck to those guys. Judging from that Atlantic article, the NCAA typically doesn't look upon such acts of "treason" lightly.

I think O'Bannon's team asked the NCAA for a written guarantee that there would be no recriminations against any current players who signed up and the NCAA's lawyers claimed to be pretty offended by the request and refused to sign. Proof will be in the pudding. It would be helpful if a couple hundred more would sign on, safety in numbers and all that. As it is, these six guys are gonna be reamed online by millions of numbnuts.

To be fair, the lawyers asked the NCAA to guarantee the behavior of people the NCAA doesn't have control over. It would be like you being president of a homeowners association and asked to legally guarantee that none of your residents would commit some action. Just because they belong to your association and you manage some aspects that relate to them doesn't mean you are in a position to legally guarantee their behavior, even in an area related to what the HOA does.

I appreciate the perspective. But I think the NCAA picks and chooses its spots based on its own self interest.

"We are aware that Jake Smith and Jake Fischer are now plaintiffs in the lawsuit," Arizona AD Greg Byrne said in a statement. "While we do not support the lawsuit, we support their right to be involved and express their opinion. They are two fine young men and we are glad they are part of our program and University."

I applaud what Arizona's AD said here and I hope he's sincere. We should expect our major universities to exhibit good citizenship, even when football is concerned.

 

[roadkill1292]

Alabama boosters get a head start on the upcoming changes.

Maybe Dee Liner mowed a lot of yards this Summer..

 

[gump]

http://t.nbcnews.com/business/former-ncaa-athletes-win-video-game-lawsuit-against-ea-6C10809666

Electronic Arts' college sports franchises have been sacked by a U.S. federal appeals court.

In a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that EA had used the images of several ex-NCAA athletes without their permission in its NCAA Football and Basketball series. The decision comes two weeks after EA lost the rights to put the NCAA logo and name on its games beyond this year.

Judges said EA's game "literally recreates [Arizona State University quarterback Samuel] Keller in the very setting in which he has achieved renown."

The decision could open up a class action suit against the video game publisher from other former college athletes who have been unhappy with their likenesses being used in the games without compensation.

EA is already facing similar suits to the one ruled on today by the appeals court. On Tuesday, the company asked a judge to dismiss the latest complaint, which was filed on behalf of a group of athletes led by Ed O'Bannon, a former star at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In a statement, EA said it was disappointed with the ruling.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

http://t.nbcnews.com/business/former-ncaa-athletes-win-video-game-lawsuit-against-ea-6C10809666

In a statement, EA said it was disappointed with the ruling.

That could be the understatement of the year.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

What purpose does the NCAA serve a conference like the SEC? Could the SEC give the NCAA the finger, add a few traditional football powers (Texas, Oklahoma, etc.) and form their own football league/association?

You should read the Atlantic article.

 

[roadkill1292]

Four months ago Southern Cal AD Pat Haden told SI.com that he was a little worried that he hadn't heard of any contingency planning by the schools should they lose the lawsuit, which he thought wasn't very smart. Is the NCAA that confident of winning? It would seem to be simple good business practice to start discussing issues that will arise if athletes are allowed to strike their own deals with sponsors, boosters, etc.

I know there's been talks of forming a new division for the football powers, is that how the big schools intend to deal with the end of the amateur model?

 

[roadkill1292]

Interesting take in the Wall Street Journal last week about how different schools would be affected should they be forced into giving up 50% of their tv revenues to the athletes.

The Buckeyes have one of the nation's largest programs with 36 sponsored sports and $142 million in revenue........

Ohio State, for instance, listed $24.7 million from broadcast rights and related revenue on its 2012 financial report—though a small part of that comes from other sources, said Pete Hagan, who oversees the Buckeyes' finances. A worst-case-scenario hit for the Buckeyes would amount to $12.4 million—or less than 9% of total athletic revenues.

Small schools can also breathe easy. Take Western Kentucky, whose $26 million in 2012 athletic revenues included only $1 million in broadcast rights. Losing $500,000 would hardly decimate the Hilltoppers. A Western Kentucky spokesman declined to comment.

Then there are schools like Iowa State. The Cyclones boast the prestige and TV-rights contract of the Big 12 Conference. But they have a modest stadium (55,000 capacity) in Ames, population 59,000. Of Iowa State's $55 million in 2012 athletic revenue, roughly $26 million came from TV rights. Half of that would gouge 24% of revenue from an athletic department that runs on a break-even basis.

 

[roadkill1292]

Last week Judge Wilken refused to certify the athletes as a class for past damages, which guarantees that the schools won't be bankrupted by a successful suit covering thousands of athletes going back decades in time. Ed O'Bannon and others can still purse individual claims, however.

But she did certify the class going forward and, unless a settlement occurs in the meantime, it appears that the suit will be contested on pretty clear grounds -- if the athletes win, they'll be able to organize themselves and negotiate collectively with the schools and other businesses on the issues of payments for appearances and licensing, etc.

Seems to me that this is the time for the schools to forge an agreement that will minimize the cut from tv revenues that they'll have to give up. In return, they'll probably have to remove most of the restrictions against income the athletes earn from other outside sources, which doesn't cost them directly anyway. "We'll place 15% of our tv revenues in a trust for the athletes and you can cut whatever deal you can get with Booster Bob's Used Cars." Or it might be time for them to step up their lobbying efforts in congress for that special exemption.

 

[The Commish]

Game On. NCAA Denied

 

[roadkill1292]

Game On. NCAA Denied

The NCAA has not only separated itself from EA and (I think) College Licensing Co. but is also suing both essentially for allowing them (the NCAA) to get into this mess. But it still wanted to participate in settlement discussions between EA, CLC and the plaintiffs. To my nonlegal mind, that seems a little rich.

I wish I could find that story detailing how the NCAA is marshaling its forces for the trial this summer. Essentially, they are rounding up coaches and athletic directors to "testify" that fans will desert college sports if players are allowed to make outside income. There is no evidence that this will happen (beyond a few polls, which are notoriously unreliable in these matters); in fact the evidence points to exactly the opposite, every sport which has transitioned from "amateur" to professional has thrived.

They really are going to use the "we're special" defense. smh