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

[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.

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..

After they lose these suits they'll be happy to put the star QB's number on a school jersey and cut him in on the sales.

For some reason, the player getting a piece seems to really bother a lot of people.

 

[RUSF18]

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..

After they lose these suits they'll be happy to put the star QB's number on a school jersey and cut him in on the sales.

For some reason, the player getting a piece seems to really bother a lot of people.

Did I see it here or somewhere else that jersey sales make up like 2% of football revenues? You tell every player they can negotiate with Nike, UA, etc about licensing their own image and a major problem is solved when the companies aren't interest in 95% of them.

 

[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.

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..

After they lose these suits they'll be happy to put the star QB's number on a school jersey and cut him in on the sales.

For some reason, the player getting a piece seems to really bother a lot of people.

Did I see it here or somewhere else that jersey sales make up like 2% of football revenues? You tell every player they can negotiate with Nike, UA, etc about licensing their own image and a major problem is solved when the companies aren't interest in 95% of them.

What problem is solved?

 

[gump]

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..

After they lose these suits they'll be happy to put the star QB's number on a school jersey and cut him in on the sales.

For some reason, the player getting a piece seems to really bother a lot of people.

Did I see it here or somewhere else that jersey sales make up like 2% of football revenues? You tell every player they can negotiate with Nike, UA, etc about licensing their own image and a major problem is solved when the companies aren't interest in 95% of them.

You saw it from me earlier in this thread. It's not 2% of 'football revenues'...it's only 2% of licensed sales. IOW...meaningless.

There are outlayers like Manziel, but for the most part the College business is much, much less player driven than the pro leagues.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/6ai2fm/an-inquiry-into-unionized-college-football

 

[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.

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..

After they lose these suits they'll be happy to put the star QB's number on a school jersey and cut him in on the sales.

For some reason, the player getting a piece seems to really bother a lot of people.

Did I see it here or somewhere else that jersey sales make up like 2% of football revenues? You tell every player they can negotiate with Nike, UA, etc about licensing their own image and a major problem is solved when the companies aren't interest in 95% of them.

You saw it from me earlier in this thread. It's not 2% of 'football revenues'...it's only 2% of licensed sales. IOW...meaningless.

There are outlayers like Manziel, but for the most part the College business is much, much less player driven than the pro leagues.

I think that's pretty accurate. But maybe what we should be speculating about instead are things like, how much will Alabama boosters pony up to procure the nation's No. 1 HS QB? And again, not picking on Bama. If there are nine 5-star QBs out there and 30 schools with serious aspirations of winning a national championship, what will it cost in real dollars to get one of those guys? Because that's the world I think we're looking at if O'Bannon and/or Kessler win these suits.

And what about retention of proven guys? What if your school wins the NC and one of your competitors offers sweet raises to your secondary? I expect transfer restrictions to be blown out of the water soon so there won't be anything stopping guys from cashing in like free agents on Super Bowl winning teams.

 

[roadkill1292]

By the way, this Noll guy is causing the NCAA all kinds of problems on the stand. Their lawyers aren't getting anywhere with him. Meanwhile, the NCAA is gonna counter with their own economist who has already written that the NCAA is a cartel, followed by Emmert and a bunch of ADs predicting the end of the world if a school's alumni set up a stipend fund for the offensive line.

 

[gump]

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..

After they lose these suits they'll be happy to put the star QB's number on a school jersey and cut him in on the sales.

For some reason, the player getting a piece seems to really bother a lot of people.

Did I see it here or somewhere else that jersey sales make up like 2% of football revenues? You tell every player they can negotiate with Nike, UA, etc about licensing their own image and a major problem is solved when the companies aren't interest in 95% of them.

You saw it from me earlier in this thread. It's not 2% of 'football revenues'...it's only 2% of licensed sales. IOW...meaningless.

There are outlayers like Manziel, but for the most part the College business is much, much less player driven than the pro leagues.

I think that's pretty accurate. But maybe what we should be speculating about instead are things like, how much will Alabama boosters pony up to procure the nation's No. 1 HS QB? And again, not picking on Bama. If there are nine 5-star QBs out there and 30 schools with serious aspirations of winning a national championship, what will it cost in real dollars to get one of those guys? Because that's the world I think we're looking at if O'Bannon and/or Kessler win these suits.

And what about retention of proven guys? What if your school wins the NC and one of your competitors offers sweet raises to your secondary? I expect transfer restrictions to be blown out of the water soon so there won't be anything stopping guys from cashing in like free agents on Super Bowl winning teams.

Those are real potential issues no question. I'm just clarifying that a kid getting a 'piece' of the business at Retail isn't playing a part in all of this. It's not important to schools or #####, Academy, HIbbett, JC Penney, Fanatics, Book Stores, etc. They can eliminate that business tomorrow with no impact.

 

[RUSF18]

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..

After they lose these suits they'll be happy to put the star QB's number on a school jersey and cut him in on the sales.

For some reason, the player getting a piece seems to really bother a lot of people.

Did I see it here or somewhere else that jersey sales make up like 2% of football revenues? You tell every player they can negotiate with Nike, UA, etc about licensing their own image and a major problem is solved when the companies aren't interest in 95% of them.

What problem is solved?

The problem of allowing players to make money without the "doomsday" type scenarios many think will occur. You don't pay players as a matter of practice, you allow them to make money on their own through autograph sales, jerseys, etc. It's a nightmare if you need to pay all of your lacrosse players and your women's crew team. It's barely anything off your bottom line if you open up the "floodgates" when it's only going to end up impacting a select few.

 

[gump]

I should add that the players get a piece of the overall league Licensed Sales in the pros...not just the jersey/player portion.

So maybe that's what this becomes...because the College Licensed business as a whole is actually larger than the NFL's.

 

[roadkill1292]

Judge Wilken isn't much of a sports fan. Yesterday she asked Tommy Prothro "What's an Espy?"

Plaintiffs are pretty much blowing NCAA's "we only sell access to the stadium" argument out of the water, NCAA now falling back on the "they signed an agreement forgoing all their likeness rights and besides, being on TV isn't a likeness" argument. I wonder if the schools could win the television rights part of the suit on definition but lose the ability to restrict the players' other individual marketing efforts?

Wilken also pointedly asking witnesses about the athletes' "campus experiences" and whether or not they're enhanced or hurt by playing big time sports.

 

[Slider6]

Judge Wilken isn't much of a sports fan. Yesterday she asked Tommy Prothro "What's an Espy?"

Plaintiffs are pretty much blowing NCAA's "we only sell access to the stadium" argument out of the water, NCAA now falling back on the "they signed an agreement forgoing all their likeness rights and besides, being on TV isn't a likeness" argument. I wonder if the schools could win the television rights part of the suit on definition but lose the ability to restrict the players' other individual marketing efforts?

Wilken also pointedly asking witnesses about the athletes' "campus experiences" and whether or not they're enhanced or hurt by playing big time sports.

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel 23m

This is great. Pilson notes that in college football, bowl games are rights holders. Wilken: "Bowl … game? A game owns the rights?"

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel 23m

If there was any doubt how confusing college football's postseason is, it has thoroughly befuddled a federal judge.

 

[roadkill1292]

The NCAA is like the FBG poster who thinks if he keeps repeating himself often enough, that will negate the need for actual reasoning. NCAA media consultant Neal Pilson:

If U of Michigan decides to "pay its QB $1M a year" out of NIL (image and licensing) funds ... "that would have negative impact on college sports."

A minute later he says that $5,000 a year wouldn't bother him so much. In neither case does he explain WHY. I think he's gonna need the "why" to persuade a judge who's not a sports fan.

 

[Christo]

I didn't realize this was a bench trial. Interesting that the NCAA would agree to that.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't realize this was a bench trial. Interesting that the NCAA would agree to that.

Isn't the alternative a jury trial?

Seems a bench trial is their best shot.

 

[Christo]

I didn't realize this was a bench trial. Interesting that the NCAA would agree to that.

Isn't the alternative a jury trial?

Seems a bench trial is their best shot.

I think the NCAA's best chance was to get some fans on the jury. The judge will actually look at is with a lot more objectivity--especially this one from I've seen in the last few posts.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't realize this was a bench trial. Interesting that the NCAA would agree to that.

Isn't the alternative a jury trial?

Seems a bench trial is their best shot.

I think the NCAA's best chance was to get some fans on the jury. The judge will actually look at is with a lot more objectivity--especially this one from I've seen in the last few posts.

Really? Had you made this comment 10 years ago, I'd probably agree. Given all the garbage that's come out of the NCAA in the years since then, it seems like finding "fans" of the NCAA is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

 

[Christo]

I didn't realize this was a bench trial. Interesting that the NCAA would agree to that.

Isn't the alternative a jury trial?

Seems a bench trial is their best shot.

I think the NCAA's best chance was to get some fans on the jury. The judge will actually look at is with a lot more objectivity--especially this one from I've seen in the last few posts.

Really? Had you made this comment 10 years ago, I'd probably agree. Given all the garbage that's come out of the NCAA in the years since then, it seems like finding "fans" of the NCAA is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Not fans of the NCAA.

 

[Insomniac]

I didn't realize this was a bench trial. Interesting that the NCAA would agree to that.

Isn't the alternative a jury trial?

Seems a bench trial is their best shot.

I think the NCAA's best chance was to get some fans on the jury. The judge will actually look at is with a lot more objectivity--especially this one from I've seen in the last few posts.

Really? Had you made this comment 10 years ago, I'd probably agree. Given all the garbage that's come out of the NCAA in the years since then, it seems like finding "fans" of the NCAA is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

The NCAA is still a little more popular with football fans than FIFA is with soccer fans.

 

[Christo]

I didn't realize this was a bench trial. Interesting that the NCAA would agree to that.

Isn't the alternative a jury trial?

Seems a bench trial is their best shot.

I think the NCAA's best chance was to get some fans on the jury. The judge will actually look at is with a lot more objectivity--especially this one from I've seen in the last few posts.

Really? Had you made this comment 10 years ago, I'd probably agree. Given all the garbage that's come out of the NCAA in the years since then, it seems like finding "fans" of the NCAA is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

The NCAA is still a little more popular with football fans than FIFA is with soccer fans.

I think people's views are clouded by age and who they hang out with. There are still plenty of people out there who don't want to know and who don't care about the players' plight. Plenty of people are happy with the way it is and given the unknown result of the players winning this or challenges like the Northwestern players' bid for unionization, they don't want them to be successful.

 

[roadkill1292]

Emmert and his cronies will testify that polls of college football fans indicate that the large majority of them are opposed to players earning money and that they will consume less football if plaintiffs win. A couple of fans on the jury may have taken a very different perspective in reaching a verdict than Judge Wilken will. I was also surprised that the NCAA agreed to a bench trial.

Plaintiffs will counter that argument, btw, by pointing at the Olympics, who Juan Samaranch said would be ruined if amateurism was ended. I don't know if there were polls at the time which supported his statement but clearly that prediction was full of hooey.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't realize this was a bench trial. Interesting that the NCAA would agree to that.

Isn't the alternative a jury trial?

Seems a bench trial is their best shot.

I think the NCAA's best chance was to get some fans on the jury. The judge will actually look at is with a lot more objectivity--especially this one from I've seen in the last few posts.

Really? Had you made this comment 10 years ago, I'd probably agree. Given all the garbage that's come out of the NCAA in the years since then, it seems like finding "fans" of the NCAA is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Not fans of the NCAA.

Fans of these teams that are also on the NCAA's side? I think it'd be easier to find fans of the NCAA at this point I know there are still some people out there that believe the players are appropriately compensated, but they are becoming fewer and fewer every day and they don't really do a good job of hiding that opinion. I find it hard to believe any of them would make it onto a jury, but I suppose anything's possible.

 

[The Commish]

Emmert and his cronies will testify that polls of college football fans indicate that the large majority of them are opposed to players earning money and that they will consume less football if plaintiffs win. A couple of fans on the jury may have taken a very different perspective in reaching a verdict than Judge Wilken will. I was also surprised that the NCAA agreed to a bench trial.

Plaintiffs will counter that argument, btw, by pointing at the Olympics, who Juan Samaranch said would be ruined if amateurism was ended. I don't know if there were polls at the time which supported his statement but clearly that prediction was full of hooey.

Any idea what published "polls" he has to support this claim?

 

[roadkill1292]

Emmert and his cronies will testify that polls of college football fans indicate that the large majority of them are opposed to players earning money and that they will consume less football if plaintiffs win. A couple of fans on the jury may have taken a very different perspective in reaching a verdict than Judge Wilken will. I was also surprised that the NCAA agreed to a bench trial.

Plaintiffs will counter that argument, btw, by pointing at the Olympics, who Juan Samaranch said would be ruined if amateurism was ended. I don't know if there were polls at the time which supported his statement but clearly that prediction was full of hooey.

Any idea what published "polls" he has to support this claim?

Dangit, don't make me go looking for it. It's been a couple of months now but it was a reputable polling firm. The bigger picture was that similar positions had been held prior to other sports going pro (golf, tennis, Olympics) and the actual results proved that the fans' opinions turned out to be hooey. They're not gonna stop watching State U because the QB is hawking Fords. It's a lot of huffing and puffing and we've seen plenty of it here as well.

 

[The Commish]

Emmert and his cronies will testify that polls of college football fans indicate that the large majority of them are opposed to players earning money and that they will consume less football if plaintiffs win. A couple of fans on the jury may have taken a very different perspective in reaching a verdict than Judge Wilken will. I was also surprised that the NCAA agreed to a bench trial.

Plaintiffs will counter that argument, btw, by pointing at the Olympics, who Juan Samaranch said would be ruined if amateurism was ended. I don't know if there were polls at the time which supported his statement but clearly that prediction was full of hooey.

Any idea what published "polls" he has to support this claim?

Dangit, don't make me go looking for it. It's been a couple of months now but it was a reputable polling firm. The bigger picture was that similar positions had been held prior to other sports going pro (golf, tennis, Olympics) and the actual results proved that the fans' opinions turned out to be hooey. They're not gonna stop watching State U because the QB is hawking Fords. It's a lot of huffing and puffing and we've seen plenty of it here as well.

Kinda nullifies the "polling" doesn't it?? Yeah...they'll SAY lots of things, but actions always speak louder than words.

What's on the docket for today? Really wish this dog and pony show was being televised.

 

[roadkill1292]

Emmert and his cronies will testify that polls of college football fans indicate that the large majority of them are opposed to players earning money and that they will consume less football if plaintiffs win. A couple of fans on the jury may have taken a very different perspective in reaching a verdict than Judge Wilken will. I was also surprised that the NCAA agreed to a bench trial.

Plaintiffs will counter that argument, btw, by pointing at the Olympics, who Juan Samaranch said would be ruined if amateurism was ended. I don't know if there were polls at the time which supported his statement but clearly that prediction was full of hooey.

Any idea what published "polls" he has to support this claim?

Dangit, don't make me go looking for it. It's been a couple of months now but it was a reputable polling firm. The bigger picture was that similar positions had been held prior to other sports going pro (golf, tennis, Olympics) and the actual results proved that the fans' opinions turned out to be hooey. They're not gonna stop watching State U because the QB is hawking Fords. It's a lot of huffing and puffing and we've seen plenty of it here as well.

Kinda nullifies the "polling" doesn't it?? Yeah...they'll SAY lots of things, but actions always speak louder than words.

What's on the docket for today? Really wish this dog and pony show was being televised.

Drexel sports management professor Ellen Staurowsky is plaintiff's last witness. Texas women's AD Christine Plonsky leads it off for the NCAA. Emmert is expected to testify Thursday. I have no idea what kind of effect his testimony will have on Judge Wilken but so far she's been pretty dismissive of evidence not backed by some good research. Over the next couple of days the schools really have to make their case that paying athletes will (1) harm competitiveness, that (2) competitiveness is important to fans and (3) that's there's no other way to maintain reasonable competitiveness other than by not paying players.

So far I don't think the schools (NCAA) have come close to establishing any of that but I'm biased and don't believe that any of it can be established.

 

[gump]

Chris is as seasoned and knowledgeable about the business of college sports as it gets...would like to hear her points.

 

[roadkill1292]

Here's where her testimony starts up. Judge Wilken seems pretty intrigued by UTexas revenues ($165 million). Plonsky says the danger in letting athletes make money is that it would cause a "separation" between them and other students and student athletes.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Here's where her testimony starts up. Judge Wilken seems pretty intrigued by UTexas revenues ($165 million). Plonsky says the danger in letting athletes make money is that it would cause a "separation" between them and other students and student athletes.

where?

 

[RUSF18]

Andy Staples:

NCAA suffers latest blow with revealing emails introduced as evidenceRead More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140617/o-bannon-v-ncaa-trial-chris-plonsky-day-7/#ixzz34zrJz3TR

 

[The Commish]

Here's where her testimony starts up. Judge Wilken seems pretty intrigued by UTexas revenues ($165 million). Plonsky says the danger in letting athletes make money is that it would cause a "separation" between them and other students and student athletes.

Interesting....I'm sure that didn't go as the NCAA would have liked

 

[roadkill1292]

Here's where her testimony starts up. Judge Wilken seems pretty intrigued by UTexas revenues ($165 million). Plonsky says the danger in letting athletes make money is that it would cause a "separation" between them and other students and student athletes.

where?

She is introduced in the last post on Page 1 of the Day 7 blog. Did that not load? You can find it at ESPN on their college football tab.

 

[roadkill1292]

Andy Staples:

NCAA suffers latest blow with revealing emails introduced as evidenceRead More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140617/o-bannon-v-ncaa-trial-chris-plonsky-day-7/#ixzz34zrJz3TR

The emails discuss how to deny the athletes a piece of a market that the schools are trying to convince Judge Wilken doesn't exist. WhoTF gave Texas $165 million then?

The "there's no market for the players' likenesses" argument has always seemed like a bizarre non-starter to me. Of course there is. But if there isn't, why does the NCAA have rules against its activity?

 

[roadkill1292]

We need a lawyer in here to explain the next witness. NCAA is having 2000 Nobel Economics Prize winner James Heckman testify that football and basketball players from single-parent homes have higher graduation rates and higher average post-graduate incomes than non-athletes in the same economic category. That's wonderful news all around but what does that have to do with the athletes making money while they're in school? Is this a lead-in to a bigger and better argument down the road?

Judge Wilken asked if every school is in Division I, II or III. Bless her heart.

 

[Slider6]

We need a lawyer in here to explain the next witness. NCAA is having 2000 Nobel Economics Prize winner James Heckman testify that football and basketball players from single-parent homes have higher graduation rates and higher average post-graduate incomes than non-athletes in the same economic category. That's wonderful news all around but what does that have to do with the athletes making money while they're in school? Is this a lead-in to a bigger and better argument down the road?

Judge Wilken asked if every school is in Division I, II or III. Bless her heart.

Hourly rate is $2300!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

We need a lawyer in here to explain the next witness. NCAA is having 2000 Nobel Economics Prize winner James Heckman testify that football and basketball players from single-parent homes have higher graduation rates and higher average post-graduate incomes than non-athletes in the same economic category. That's wonderful news all around but what does that have to do with the athletes making money while they're in school? Is this a lead-in to a bigger and better argument down the road?

Judge Wilken asked if every school is in Division I, II or III. Bless her heart.

Hmmm....

Players need to make money because yada yada yada yada and many are from single parent low income homes and denying them the chance to make their family economics better because of an outdated rule is not fair.

But, see here, those very athletes you are talking about are succeeding in this current system. The benefit they recieve in getting the education is what is changing their family fortune.

I'm sure I could think of more but that's all I got for now. And though I am supposed to be able to argue for both sides in a lawsuit if need be, the fact remains that there isn't a shred of support I can muster for the NCAA at all and as I have said previously, I hope the whole thing is burned to the ground anient Rome style.

 

[roadkill1292]

This court district appears to have gotten all of the big lawsuits against the NCAA, including Jeffrey Kessler's go-for-the-balls antitrust suit. If I'm reading things right, Judge Wilken herself has a status hearing on a bunch of these later today.

 

[roadkill1292]

EA VP Joel Linzner testified this afternoon that EA tried long and hard to obtain permission from the NCAA to use more specific player identifications because of consumer demand. NCAA's "no market value for individual players" defense has been pretty effectively shredded.

Fallback position: South Carolina President Harris Pastides had a couple of fears to tell the court: (quotes courtesy of Mark Schlabach covering the trial for ESPN)

Pastides said paying FB and MBB players would give them a "license to not follow univ. Rules & encourage them to have 1 foot in pro world"

Pastides says paying FB and MBB players would make other non-paid athletes feel like "2nd-class citizens and feel worse about themselves"

Call me cynical but I don't think those will have much sway with Judge Wilken.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Those two arguments are so bad a 1st year law student who can't read or write should be able to eviscerate them. And that is from the President of a University?

I should have entered academia.

 

[roadkill1292]

Oh, Stanford AD Bernie Muir is backing this argument up by showing tweets from QB Kevin Hogan at a women's lacrosse game. It's all milk and cookies as long as we don't pay them!

 

[roadkill1292]

Emmert's turn today. He was excoriated after his weak appearance on Mike and Mike a while back but I'm sure he's brought plenty of fresh new statistical evidence on how athletes making money will do grievous injury........to the athletes. Yes, that's the argument the presidents and ADs have been making so far.

Andy Staples of SI.com notes today that this suit is only the opening salvo because Jeffrey Kessler is coming to blow things up.

 

[roadkill1292]

ESPN reporter Tom Farrey, who has been covering the trial since its first day, says it's game over for the NCAA. I don't think that's a good sign for the defendants if someone representing an organization that pays them hundreds of millions a year says something like that.

"They're stuck," one former NCAA insider who has been following the trial told me. "They're stuck in the arguments of the academic world, which differ from that of the real world."

I think Christo was making an important observation earlier about a bench trial being better for plaintiffs and worse for the NCAA. Mark Emmert and Jim Delaney sounding forceful and confident in their pronouncements about the importance of amateurism may have influenced a jury made up of fans and other Joe Citizens but Judge Wilken is looking for some facts. And so far, the schools have just gotten shredded on the arguments. So far, one of their own witnesses has called Alabama a "pro team" and another one (economist Daniel Rubinfeld) has written that the NCAA is a cartel.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I want to believe that, as Yankee says above, the NCAA will be burned to the ground, the earth where it once stood will be salted and NCAA execs will be sold into bondage.

But if something seems too good to be true it almost always is. Somewhere in the legal system the NCAA will have a fixer for all of this -- a Federalist Society type who never met a money-making organization he didn't like. Not at all sold this is the end of the sham.

 

[roadkill1292]

I want to believe that, as Yankee says above, the NCAA will be burned to the ground, the earth where it once stood will be salted and NCAA execs will be sold into bondage.

But if something seems too good to be true it almost always is. Somewhere in the legal system the NCAA will have a fixer for all of this -- a Federalist Society type who never met a money-making organization he didn't like. Not at all sold this is the end of the sham.

Indeed, the NCAA has been so remarkably inept in its defense that I can't help but be suspicious. Do they have an ace in the hole? Or are they throwing the game, hoping to lose so the Big Guys ride off into the sunset waving good-bye to the Sun Belt and WAC?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

If only

 

[Slider6]

EA VP Joel Linzner testified this afternoon that EA tried long and hard to obtain permission from the NCAA to use more specific player identifications because of consumer demand. NCAA's "no market value for individual players" defense has been pretty effectively shredded.

Fallback position: South Carolina President Harris Pastides had a couple of fears to tell the court: (quotes courtesy of Mark Schlabach covering the trial for ESPN)

Pastides said paying FB and MBB players would give them a "license to not follow univ. Rules & encourage them to have 1 foot in pro world"

Pastides says paying FB and MBB players would make other non-paid athletes feel like "2nd-class citizens and feel worse about themselves"

Call me cynical but I don't think those will have much sway with Judge Wilken.

Here's my question. Where does Title IX fit into this? If you pay FB & MBB only, isn't that against Title IX rules? So you have to pay all athletes equally? This will mean schools will kill all non-revenue generating men's sports pretty much immediately.

 

[roadkill1292]

EA VP Joel Linzner testified this afternoon that EA tried long and hard to obtain permission from the NCAA to use more specific player identifications because of consumer demand. NCAA's "no market value for individual players" defense has been pretty effectively shredded.

Fallback position: South Carolina President Harris Pastides had a couple of fears to tell the court: (quotes courtesy of Mark Schlabach covering the trial for ESPN)

Pastides said paying FB and MBB players would give them a "license to not follow univ. Rules & encourage them to have 1 foot in pro world"

Pastides says paying FB and MBB players would make other non-paid athletes feel like "2nd-class citizens and feel worse about themselves"

Call me cynical but I don't think those will have much sway with Judge Wilken.

Here's my question. Where does Title IX fit into this? If you pay FB & MBB only, isn't that against Title IX rules? So you have to pay all athletes equally? This will mean schools will kill all non-revenue generating men's sports pretty much immediately.

:shurg: I don't know. I can think of lots of permutations, though, some of which include non-revenue sports fully or proportionally and some which don't. I don't think this case is going to address it; it's focusing on the main issue first. Remember that just because it's complicated to figure out how the winnings get split up is no reason for the other side to win.

 

[roadkill1292]

Lulz

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

EA VP Joel Linzner testified this afternoon that EA tried long and hard to obtain permission from the NCAA to use more specific player identifications because of consumer demand. NCAA's "no market value for individual players" defense has been pretty effectively shredded.

Fallback position: South Carolina President Harris Pastides had a couple of fears to tell the court: (quotes courtesy of Mark Schlabach covering the trial for ESPN)

Pastides said paying FB and MBB players would give them a "license to not follow univ. Rules & encourage them to have 1 foot in pro world"

Pastides says paying FB and MBB players would make other non-paid athletes feel like "2nd-class citizens and feel worse about themselves"

Call me cynical but I don't think those will have much sway with Judge Wilken.

Here's my question. Where does Title IX fit into this? If you pay FB & MBB only, isn't that against Title IX rules? So you have to pay all athletes equally? This will mean schools will kill all non-revenue generating men's sports pretty much immediately.

The schools will continue to pay them equally -- with tuition -- but athletes in big money sports will be able to receive outside money.

 

[roadkill1292]

EA VP Joel Linzner testified this afternoon that EA tried long and hard to obtain permission from the NCAA to use more specific player identifications because of consumer demand. NCAA's "no market value for individual players" defense has been pretty effectively shredded.

Fallback position: South Carolina President Harris Pastides had a couple of fears to tell the court: (quotes courtesy of Mark Schlabach covering the trial for ESPN)

Pastides said paying FB and MBB players would give them a "license to not follow univ. Rules & encourage them to have 1 foot in pro world"

Pastides says paying FB and MBB players would make other non-paid athletes feel like "2nd-class citizens and feel worse about themselves"

Call me cynical but I don't think those will have much sway with Judge Wilken.

Here's my question. Where does Title IX fit into this? If you pay FB & MBB only, isn't that against Title IX rules? So you have to pay all athletes equally? This will mean schools will kill all non-revenue generating men's sports pretty much immediately.

The schools will continue to pay them equally -- with tuition -- but athletes in big money sports will be able to receive outside money.

I think the complication is with TV money. Let's say the Big 12 allows its schools to pay up to 27% (number pulled from ###) of TV revenues to "student-athletes." Which players qualify for a cut? Whatever star football and basketball players get from outside sources isn't the problem (well, except to the current power structure), that'll be theirs to keep.