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

[roadkill1292]

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.

Colleges won't be forced to pay players. They're not forced to give them scholarships now. If a football player earns outside endorsement money, how does this affect the school's wrestling team?

 

[Sinn Fein]

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.

Colleges won't be forced to pay players. They're not forced to give them scholarships now. If a football player earns outside endorsement money, how does this affect the school's wrestling team?

Short-sighted approach imo. I agree with it - but it is short-sighted.

People/companies/sponsors/donors are only willing to give so much to support a program - they don't really care how the money is divided up. Right now 100% of those funds are going to the colleges - when some of that money is then diverted to basketball and football players - it will mean less money going to the colleges, and in turn less money available to support other programs. The local car dealer who is a big donor, will now use his money buying endorsements from key players - and no longer use it to fund the booster club. When CBS renews the basketball contract, and players are entitled to some percent of that deal, that is money no longer going to the colleges, etc.

 

[Daywalker]

Would think the money players could get from endorsements is a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue's these colleges are bringing in. The local car-dealer money is peanuts.

 

[roadkill1292]

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.

Colleges won't be forced to pay players. They're not forced to give them scholarships now. If a football player earns outside endorsement money, how does this affect the school's wrestling team?

Short-sighted approach imo. I agree with it - but it is short-sighted.

People/companies/sponsors/donors are only willing to give so much to support a program - they don't really care how the money is divided up. Right now 100% of those funds are going to the colleges - when some of that money is then diverted to basketball and football players - it will mean less money going to the colleges, and in turn less money available to support other programs. The local car dealer who is a big donor, will now use his money buying endorsements from key players - and no longer use it to fund the booster club. When CBS renews the basketball contract, and players are entitled to some percent of that deal, that is money no longer going to the colleges, etc.

There's probably a lot of truth to this perspective though I have trouble reconciling it with the sums given on the sly to Cam Newton and Reggie Bush.

What's really short-sighted is the colleges' collective belief that they could get away with illegal financial restraints on their players forever.

 

[roadkill1292]

Would think the money players could get from endorsements is a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue's these colleges are bringing in. The local car-dealer money is peanuts.

You know when we talk about endorsements that we really aren't talking about endorsements, right? "Endorsements" is just a nice way of saying that athletes can take money from private entities without ramifications to their eligibility. If Booster Bob wants to pay Big Recruit $300,000 to attend ESU and play basketball, Big Recuit doesn't have to show up on a single billboard for Booster Bob.

 

[roadkill1292]

Yankee, I've been calling it the "we're special" defense but it's more accurate to say that the NCAA and schools are going to rely heavily on what's called the "rule of reason" defense, right?

The argument will be (1) polls indicate that fans will be less interested in the product if they know some of the athletes are making money (which is stupid of fans if true but more likely a pile of steaming BS), (2) revenues, which benefit the schools (think of the children), will decline and (3) the good that those revenues do justify the restrictions on athletes that nobody else in the country is subject to.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yankee, I've been calling it the "we're special" defense but it's more accurate to say that the NCAA and schools are going to rely heavily on what's called the "rule of reason" defense, right?

The argument will be (1) polls indicate that fans will be less interested in the product if they know some of the athletes are making money (which is stupid of fans if true but more likely a pile of steaming BS), (2) revenues, which benefit the schools (think of the children), will decline and (3) the good that those revenues do justify the restrictions on athletes that nobody else in the country is subject to.

The rule of reason isn't a defense. It's a standard of review.

Certain categories of activities are considered per se restraints of trade under the Sherman Act. Things like price fixing and group boycotts. Other categories of activities are evaluated under the so-called "rule of reason" standard, which requires a detailed, fact-based analysis of whether the activity is actually anti-competitive.

I'm sure the NCAA would prefer a rule of reason analysis, but they'd probably more strongly prefer a finding that they're not involved in trade or commerce in the first place (at least with respect to labor). Because if you buy the argument that the policy of restricting competition for athletes only to the value of scholarships is contemplated under the Sherman Act, then it's clear its a a per se violation. Limiting compensation is wage fixing, and wage fixing is a category of price fixing.

 

[roadkill1292]

Thanks, Scoob, I think I followed most of that.

Whether the sports-loving public is ready to hop aboard the bandwagon is another story. A Marist College Center for Sports Communication poll conducted last year showed that about two-thirds of sports fans, college football fans and college basketball fans concurred that a scholarship for top players was sufficient. But when Seton Hall Sports Poll asked a similar question in 2007, the number was much higher, with 78% of those responding saying college athletes should not be paid salaries.

Fan perception, which I don't give a #### about, remains heavily on the side of athletes receiving no additional income, either from school or outside sources. I won't be deciding this case, however, so will the fans' tepid (flaccid) threats to lessen their interest levels if athletes are compensated be a factor in the courts' decision at all?

Yes, you read that right, boys and girls. I just called everyone who says it's important for athletes to remain uncompensated "limp #####".

 

[Jim11]

Thanks, Scoob, I think I followed most of that.

Whether the sports-loving public is ready to hop aboard the bandwagon is another story. A Marist College Center for Sports Communication poll conducted last year showed that about two-thirds of sports fans, college football fans and college basketball fans concurred that a scholarship for top players was sufficient. But when Seton Hall Sports Poll asked a similar question in 2007, the number was much higher, with 78% of those responding saying college athletes should not be paid salaries.

Fan perception, which I don't give a #### about, remains heavily on the side of athletes receiving no additional income, either from school or outside sources. I won't be deciding this case, however, so will the fans' tepid (flaccid) threats to lessen their interest levels if athletes are compensated be a factor in the courts' decision at all?

Yes, you read that right, boys and girls. I just called everyone who says it's important for athletes to remain uncompensated "limp #####".

Athlete's are compensated. It's called a scholarship

 

[The Commish]

oh god

 

[TobiasFunke]

oh god

Like Coach K, Jim only favors free market principles if rich white people are the beneficiaries.

 

[Daywalker]

Would think the money players could get from endorsements is a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue's these colleges are bringing in. The local car-dealer money is peanuts.

You know when we talk about endorsements that we really aren't talking about endorsements, right? "Endorsements" is just a nice way of saying that athletes can take money from private entities without ramifications to their eligibility. If Booster Bob wants to pay Big Recruit $300,000 to attend ESU and play basketball, Big Recuit doesn't have to show up on a single billboard for Booster Bob.

Does that makes things any more uneven then say Kentucky and Duke getting all the top hoops prospects every year? The problemt of Booster Bob buying up all the talent, which is likely overblown, pales in comparison to the talent getting squat in a billion dollar business.

 

[roadkill1292]

Would think the money players could get from endorsements is a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue's these colleges are bringing in. The local car-dealer money is peanuts.

You know when we talk about endorsements that we really aren't talking about endorsements, right? "Endorsements" is just a nice way of saying that athletes can take money from private entities without ramifications to their eligibility. If Booster Bob wants to pay Big Recruit $300,000 to attend ESU and play basketball, Big Recuit doesn't have to show up on a single billboard for Booster Bob.

Does that makes things any more uneven then say Kentucky and Duke getting all the top hoops prospects every year? The problemt of Booster Bob buying up all the talent, which is likely overblown, pales in comparison to the talent getting squat in a billion dollar business.

Indeed. The competitive advantage argument has always been a non-starter.

 

[Christo]

oh god

Like Coach K, Jim only favors free market principles if rich white people are the beneficiaries.

I'd be in favor of limiting coaches salaries and outside shoe deals too

 

[Daywalker]

Would think the money players could get from endorsements is a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue's these colleges are bringing in. The local car-dealer money is peanuts.

You know when we talk about endorsements that we really aren't talking about endorsements, right? "Endorsements" is just a nice way of saying that athletes can take money from private entities without ramifications to their eligibility. If Booster Bob wants to pay Big Recruit $300,000 to attend ESU and play basketball, Big Recuit doesn't have to show up on a single billboard for Booster Bob.

Does that makes things any more uneven then say Kentucky and Duke getting all the top hoops prospects every year? The problemt of Booster Bob buying up all the talent, which is likely overblown, pales in comparison to the talent getting squat in a billion dollar business.

Indeed. The competitive advantage argument has always been a non-starter.

I think the booster buying up all the talent is overblown because if that was the case N. Saban would be making 3x's any other coach. Instead he makes a bit more then Bret Bielama. These players get caught for free shoes and tattoos.

 

[The Commish]

Looks like the NCAA is drunk blogging again:

NCAA Reacts To EA Settlement
First, under no circumstances will we allow the proposed agreement between EA and plaintiff’s lawyers to negatively impact the eligibility of any student-athlete…not one will miss a practice or a game if this settlement is approved by the court. This proposed settlement does not equate to payment of current student-athletes for their athletic performance, regardless of how it is being publicly characterized.
Second, the real benefactors of this settlement are the lawyers, who could pocket more than $15 million.
We have not yet determined whether to formally object to any of the settlement terms.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

They really are a laughingstock.

 

[RUSF18]

Tone deaf as always.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Looks like the NCAA is drunk blogging again:

NCAA Reacts To EA Settlement

First, under no circumstances will we allow the proposed agreement between EA and plaintiff’s lawyers to negatively impact the eligibility of any student-athlete…not one will miss a practice or a game if this settlement is approved by the court. This proposed settlement does not equate to payment of current student-athletes for their athletic performance, regardless of how it is being publicly characterized.

Second, the real benefactors of this settlement are the lawyers, who could pocket more than $15 million.

We have not yet determined whether to formally object to any of the settlement terms.

If you are trying to maintain the fiction that you're deeply concerned with education, it's probably not great to confuse the words "benefactor" and "beneficiary."

 

[[icon]]

UPDATE:

 

[roadkill1292]

From SB Nation's primer on the case:

The former NCAA director of corporate relationships will likely testify that NCAA revenue comes from the schools' platforms, not the players, which could be substantive if Wilken agrees.

We've seen this argument made before in this and other threads, that people watch because of the schools and not because of the players. Therefore, the argument goes, the athletes have no market value. Which is complete and total bull####. Plaintiffs are gonna destroy that argument with the NCAA's own actions -- every time a school has been sanctioned because a booster supplied improper benefits (anyone remember Reggie Bush?).

If I were O'Bannon's lawyers, I'd call the head of marketing for Nike as a witness and ask him what his company would have been willing to pay Johnny Manziel to hawk its products during his sophomore season.

 

[The Commish]

Schools beginning to see the writing on the wall? Not really making it easier for the NCAA to make their claims when schools begin to take these kinds of measures. After all, no need to stop doing it if there's nothing wrong with it, right?

 

[gump]

Schools beginning to see the writing on the wall? Not really making it easier for the NCAA to make their claims when schools begin to take these kinds of measures. After all, no need to stop doing it if there's nothing wrong with it, right?

This is an easier decision than schools portray it...the 'Jersey' category is only 2% of the licensed business.

 

[roadkill1292]

Five years after filing, the trial starts today.

 

[The Commish]

Day 1

How is this NOT on TV??

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Day 1

How is this NOT on TV??

Very few federal courts allow cameras in the courtroom, and it is only permitted with the consent of all parties.

 

[The Commish]

Day 1

How is this NOT on TV??

Very few federal courts allow cameras in the courtroom, and it is only permitted with the consent of all parties.

 

[roadkill1292]

ESPN has a fellow in court tweeting frequent brief updates of the "action," which works out pretty good for me. He seems pretty evenhanded, letting us know when the plaintiffs' stumble and not editorializing over how crappy the schools and the current system are. But it would be pretty cool to be able the see the incredulous looks on Judge Wilken's face whenever the NCAA heavyweights take the stand and tell the inevitable whopper with complete self-assuredness.

 

[Politician Spock]

ESPN has a fellow in court tweeting frequent brief updates of the "action," which works out pretty good for me. He seems pretty evenhanded, letting us know when the plaintiffs' stumble and not editorializing over how crappy the schools and the current system are. But it would be pretty cool to be able the see the incredulous looks on Judge Wilken's face whenever the NCAA heavyweights take the stand and tell the inevitable whopper with complete self-assuredness.

Keep in mind the judge has probably been advised just how much the ruling could impact many state governments given how many state run colleges are involved in this industry.

Remember that not even the plantiff's expected that the right of the government to tax the people would be used by court as the constitutional justification for Obamacare.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that this court could rule for the plantiff here for reasons even the plantiff didn't expect.

I am prepared for a crazy ruling that enables the schools to continuing screwing over the athletes, as unfortunate as that would be.

 

[roadkill1292]

ESPN has a fellow in court tweeting frequent brief updates of the "action," which works out pretty good for me. He seems pretty evenhanded, letting us know when the plaintiffs' stumble and not editorializing over how crappy the schools and the current system are. But it would be pretty cool to be able the see the incredulous looks on Judge Wilken's face whenever the NCAA heavyweights take the stand and tell the inevitable whopper with complete self-assuredness.

Keep in mind the judge has probably been advised just how much the ruling could impact many state governments given how many state run colleges are involved in this industry.

Remember that not even the plantiff's expected that the right of the government to tax the people would be used by court as the constitutional justification for Obamacare.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that this court could rule for the plantiff here for reasons even the plantiff didn't expect.

I am prepared for a crazy ruling that enables the schools to continuing screwing over the athletes, as unfortunate as that would be.

I'm prepared, too. But it won't be the end of the legal challenges if it does. They're just gonna keep getting sued.

 

[roadkill1292]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Which, of course, doesn't address the price fixing agreement. Plaintiffs will argue that schools can't agree among themselves to all pay the same.

 

[Politician Spock]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Someone should have shown them that AT&T made the same argument in the early 80's.

 

[The Commish]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Which, of course, doesn't address the price fixing agreement. Plaintiffs will argue that schools can't agree among themselves to all pay the same.

Why on earth would they go that path? There's no law saying these schools have to be part of the NCAA....we all know the NCAA does nothing but decrease these schools' bottom lines and provide nothing of consequence along the way.

 

[roadkill1292]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Which, of course, doesn't address the price fixing agreement. Plaintiffs will argue that schools can't agree among themselves to all pay the same.

Why on earth would they go that path? There's no law saying these schools have to be part of the NCAA....we all know the NCAA does nothing but decrease these schools' bottom lines and provide nothing of consequence along the way.

Who go what path? Not following here.

 

[roadkill1292]

Fireworks will start shortly. Plaintiffs' economist expert has played his Olympics-are-more-popular-than-ever-since-they-dropped-amateurism card and has attacked the schools' competitive balance in football and basketball. Defense attorneys can't let any of this slide without a big fight.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Remember that not even the plantiff's expected that the right of the government to tax the people would be used by court as the constitutional justification for Obamacare.

Arguments are like quarterbacks: it helps to have a decent backup. In the Obamacare case, the government argued that the individual mandate was authorized by the Commerce Clause, or -- as a backup -- by the Taxing and Spending Clause.

You don't expect to have to win with your backup, but it's not all that unusual, either. It's not like they hadn't briefed the issue and Justice Roberts just came up with it on his own as a surprise.

 

[The Commish]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Which, of course, doesn't address the price fixing agreement. Plaintiffs will argue that schools can't agree among themselves to all pay the same.

Why on earth would they go that path? There's no law saying these schools have to be part of the NCAA....we all know the NCAA does nothing but decrease these schools' bottom lines and provide nothing of consequence along the way.

Who go what path? Not following here.

The "without us" part. Do they believe that the popularity of CFB is because of the NCAA? Without them the schools would probably be making MORE than what they are making today.

 

[TobiasFunke]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Which, of course, doesn't address the price fixing agreement. Plaintiffs will argue that schools can't agree among themselves to all pay the same.

Why on earth would they go that path? There's no law saying these schools have to be part of the NCAA....we all know the NCAA does nothing but decrease these schools' bottom lines and provide nothing of consequence along the way.

Who go what path? Not following here.

The "without us" part. Do they believe that the popularity of CFB is because of the NCAA? Without them the schools would probably be making MORE than what they are making today.

It's not NCAA vs schools. The NCAA and the schools are on the same side. It's NCAA vs. "student-athletes." The "you" is the first post is the kids, not the schools.

 

[randall146]

Why are we assuming all the non revenue sports would end up getting cut if revenue athletes get paid. There are plenty of schools getting little to no revenue from athletics, yet they have athletic programs.

Athletics is no different from all the other non-revenue generating activites at a school. English, astronomy, and theatre don't generate revenue either, yet schools still offer them. To attract students (tuition) and alumni (donations).

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why are we assuming all the non revenue sports would end up getting cut if revenue athletes get paid. There are plenty of schools getting little to no revenue from athletics, yet they have athletic programs.

Athletics is no different from all the other non-revenue generating activites at a school. English, astronomy, and theatre don't generate revenue either, yet schools still offer them. To attract students (tuition) and alumni (donations).

I think the difference is scholarships. Playing Division I field hockey usually gets you a scholarship. Acting in a play generally doesn't. Yes, there are exceptions to both examples.

I guess schools could continue to have the non-revenue sports without scholarships. But the scholarships make them very expensive.

 

[roadkill1292]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Which, of course, doesn't address the price fixing agreement. Plaintiffs will argue that schools can't agree among themselves to all pay the same.

Why on earth would they go that path? There's no law saying these schools have to be part of the NCAA....we all know the NCAA does nothing but decrease these schools' bottom lines and provide nothing of consequence along the way.

Who go what path? Not following here.

The "without us" part. Do they believe that the popularity of CFB is because of the NCAA? Without them the schools would probably be making MORE than what they are making today.

It's not NCAA vs schools. The NCAA and the schools are on the same side. It's NCAA vs. "student-athletes." The "you" is the first post is the kids, not the schools.

Yes, this. Sorry for my post muddling things up a little. The NCAA used the Stanford-Cal game's long history as justification for claiming that it was 100% the schools' doing that made all the revenue from it possible and that the current athletes have no claim to any of it. It's a subset of the "college players have no market value" defense, which might work right up until the day when Stanford's team refuses to come out of the tunnel three minutes before kickoff.

 

[Politician Spock]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Which, of course, doesn't address the price fixing agreement. Plaintiffs will argue that schools can't agree among themselves to all pay the same.

Why on earth would they go that path? There's no law saying these schools have to be part of the NCAA....we all know the NCAA does nothing but decrease these schools' bottom lines and provide nothing of consequence along the way.

Who go what path? Not following here.

The "without us" part. Do they believe that the popularity of CFB is because of the NCAA? Without them the schools would probably be making MORE than what they are making today.

It's not NCAA vs schools. The NCAA and the schools are on the same side. It's NCAA vs. "student-athletes." The "you" is the first post is the kids, not the schools.

Yes, this. Sorry for my post muddling things up a little. The NCAA used the Stanford-Cal game's long history as justification for claiming that it was 100% the schools' doing that made all the revenue from it possible and that the current athletes have no claim to any of it. It's a subset of the "college players have no market value" defense, which might work right up until the day when Stanford's team refuses to come out of the tunnel three minutes before kickoff.

The NFL could make the same argument regarding the Bear's/Packer's games. But the NFL player's union lawyers would squash it like a grape. It's a dumb argument, and just shows how little the NCAA has in their hand to play this card game.

 

[roadkill1292]

By the way, I love saying "You'll get nothing and like it!" Such a great line said by such a great dooshy character.

 

[The Commish]

NCAA bringing the early Day 2 hammer -- without us, there's no (tv) show. We own it all, we've owned it since Day One and you've got no rights to anything about it. You'll get nothing and like it.

Which, of course, doesn't address the price fixing agreement. Plaintiffs will argue that schools can't agree among themselves to all pay the same.

Why on earth would they go that path? There's no law saying these schools have to be part of the NCAA....we all know the NCAA does nothing but decrease these schools' bottom lines and provide nothing of consequence along the way.

Who go what path? Not following here.

The "without us" part. Do they believe that the popularity of CFB is because of the NCAA? Without them the schools would probably be making MORE than what they are making today.

It's not NCAA vs schools. The NCAA and the schools are on the same side. It's NCAA vs. "student-athletes." The "you" is the first post is the kids, not the schools.

I get that. I simply don't believe this would be an issue if the NCAA weren't involved. The NCAA is giving the schools a rock to hide behind. If that rock's removed, you'll see quickly what the schools really believe. There's a reason the larger schools are already talking about their own set of rules. Though, it still baffles me why they'd want to still be considered under the NCAA umbrella. Haven't figured out that part yet.

 

[roadkill1292]

Oh Jesus H. Christ, the NCAA's lawyer just pulled out the argument that tv networks only pay for stadium access, not for the games or the players. "If the game was played in a park, anybody could film it and there'd be nothing for the players to sell." Therefore stadium access is the only thing that gives the game value.

We snickered at the NCAA months ago about this.

 

[Politician Spock]

Oh Jesus H. Christ, the NCAA's lawyer just pulled out the argument that tv networks only pay for stadium access, not for the games or the players. "If the game was played in a park, anybody could film it and there'd be nothing for the players to sell." Therefore stadium access is the only thing that gives the game value.

We snickered at the NCAA months ago about this.

This is like playing Euchre and the NCAA is playing non-trump 9's and 10's.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm half inclined to believe the NCAA is willingly committing suicide here, and the schools have something else in mind to replace it.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm half inclined to believe the NCAA is willingly committing suicide here, and the schools have something else in mind to replace it.

I can understand this suspicion. The worst that can happen from an Oklahoma's perspective is that the courts force them to stop following the current NCAA rules which are largely there to help the smaller programs keep up. If the schools and boosters are turned loose, the big programs will wave bye-bye to the Wake Forests without a backward glance and pocket the lion's share of tv revenues by scheduling their fellow Goliaths.

 

[Da Guru]

Oh Jesus H. Christ, the NCAA's lawyer just pulled out the argument that tv networks only pay for stadium access, not for the games or the players. "If the game was played in a park, anybody could film it and there'd be nothing for the players to sell." Therefore stadium access is the only thing that gives the game value.

We snickered at the NCAA months ago about this.

I heard something yesterday that schools will now only "officially" sell jerseys with the #1 or the last 2 digits of the year. So just 1 and 14 this year.

 

[Parrothead]

Oh Jesus H. Christ, the NCAA's lawyer just pulled out the argument that tv networks only pay for stadium access, not for the games or the players. "If the game was played in a park, anybody could film it and there'd be nothing for the players to sell." Therefore stadium access is the only thing that gives the game value.

We snickered at the NCAA months ago about this.

I heard something yesterday that schools will now only "officially" sell jerseys with the #1 or the last 2 digits of the year. So just 1 and 14 this year.

so if I'm a 5-star recruit, I can demand #1 or go elsewhere..