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

[Politician Spock]

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.

This is where collective bargaining takes care of the issue. It's likely that there will a CBA for each conference, and the CBA will entitle every student athlete to a cut of all TV revenues from sports. So if the CBA for the SEC states all the SEC athletes get 31% of all SEC TV revenues, then a women's field hockey athlete at Missouri gets just as much of the entire SEC TV revenue as the QB for Alabama. If a school droped a sport, then their students would end up getting less of that revenue than schools that keep playing all sports.

 

[roadkill1292]

Interesting take, Spock.

I don't think Emmert was particularly effective in front of Judge Wilken. Andy Staples relates this exchange between the two.

Wilken sought additional clarification, asking how receiving money for the use of their likenesses would harm the athletes. "The assumption is that by converting them into a professional athlete, they are no longer a student-athlete," Emmert said. "They are not part of the academic environment. They're not in a position to gain the advantages of being a student-athlete and being a student at that university. They are not there avocationally but vocationally."

Wilken asked one more follow-up question. "And that is what you consider to be exploitation of them?"

"Yes," Emmert replied. "In this language, yes."

What the schools are calling "exploitation" is what everyone else calls "normal business." Normal business isn't considered exploitation anywhere else except on campuses -- and even then it only applies to athletes in revenue sports. You better have a damn good reason for this exception and so far Emmert hasn't identified one to the judge. He just brought a lot of academic fluff.

 

[Sinn Fein]

NCAA is really dumb on this.

They should have allowed athletes to make money off their image/likeness/name a long time ago. If anyone really digs deep here - the primary argument that they hold their hat on - play in exchange for tuition room & board really falls flat - particularly in light of the recent McCants revelations that many of these athletes are not really getting an education while they are in college.

The days of the "student-athlete" have been gone for a while, at least when it come to the top football and basketball schools. Trying to pretend it still exists is pure folly.

 

[roadkill1292]

Oh, this is precious. Judge Wilken asked Emmert why there wasn't a periodic financial rebalancing so small schools could have the same resources as big schools if competitive balance was so important.

Jim Delany now riding in to save the schools' collective bacon.

 

[MattFancy]

NCAA is really dumb on this.

They should have allowed athletes to make money off their image/likeness/name a long time ago. If anyone really digs deep here - the primary argument that they hold their hat on - play in exchange for tuition room & board really falls flat - particularly in light of the recent McCants revelations that many of these athletes are not really getting an education while they are in college.

The days of the "student-athlete" have been gone for a while, at least when it come to the top football and basketball schools. Trying to pretend it still exists is pure folly.

Well not only that, but any other student that attends college is permitted to earn money. Sure you can say the athletes get money from scholarships, but students can get academic scholarships that help pay for some if not all of college.

 

[The Commish]

Oh, this is precious. Judge Wilken asked Emmert why there wasn't a periodic financial rebalancing so small schools could have the same resources as big schools if competitive balance was so important.

Jim Delany now riding in to save the schools' collective bacon.

I'm surprised he (Delany) is part of this. While I don't really like him, he's a hell of a commissioner if the goal is to maximize resources and make money. No one does it better This seems like something he'd know to stay away from.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Emmert is really a moron. In fact, everyone on the NCAA side is. Collective stupidity. It's amazing that people with advanced degrees and high positions of power can be so collectively stupid and not be in Congress.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm wondering if Judge Wilken is as truly innocent about college sports as she appears or if she is just toying with the NCAA guys who are trying to defend the indefensible.

I swear the NCAA goons are throwing this case. Don't be surprised if Emmert winds up with a nice title and big paycheck in the new Division IV administration as a reward for playing stupid on the stand.

But if they're seriously this dumb, the beating they're taking now is nothing like what they'll take from Kessler. That guy has been dealing with the serious ####### lawyers of the NFL.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is this on TV? Or are you guys just getting updates from reporters' tweets?

 

[roadkill1292]

Is this on TV? Or are you guys just getting updates from reporters' tweets?

The tweets that ESPN is posting on their site. It's mostly Mark Schlabach but they throw in some others, too, including some from SI.com's Andy Staples.

The almost-daily wrapup stories that these guys are filing are where the really good stuff has been, though. That's when they can go into details and nuances that 140 characters isn't designed for.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

@GeorgeSchroeder from USA Today looks like a pretty good follow, as well.

 

[roadkill1292]

Commenters at the end of articles, a group we all know to be sophisticated and nuanced sports consumers, are now accusing ESPN and SI of slanted coverage.

 

[gump]

NCAA is really dumb on this.

They should have allowed athletes to make money off their image/likeness/name a long time ago. If anyone really digs deep here - the primary argument that they hold their hat on - play in exchange for tuition room & board really falls flat - particularly in light of the recent McCants revelations that many of these athletes are not really getting an education while they are in college.

The days of the "student-athlete" have been gone for a while, at least when it come to the top football and basketball schools. Trying to pretend it still exists is pure folly.

The student athlete still exists at top football and basketball schools, and some serious money is spent by these schools on that aspect...which is a important part of recruiting now.

How much of that money goes to paying the players in the future? I would think the best of the best athletic schools will still need an academic support system for recruiting.

 

[roadkill1292]

Does Judge Wilken really not know what an athletic booster is?

Mike FishJudge Wilken doesn't get the third party issue - boosters, street agents

Is it possible that she doesn't even know that there are tons of people out there willing to throw money at players in an effort for Homestate U to win a few football games? And that the NCAA spends millions trying to keep it from happening? What would a rational person hearing about all this for the first time make of these shenanigans?

This is very amusing, sort of like trying to figure out how to explain the human sex act to a visitor from another planet.

 

[Premier]

@slmandel: Judge Wilken: Does "SEC" get confused for the Securities and Exchange Commission? Sankey: "In my part of the country, generally not."

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does Judge Wilken really not know what an athletic booster is?

Mike Fish

Judge Wilken doesn't get the third party issue - boosters, street agents

Is it possible that she doesn't even know that there are tons of people out there willing to throw money at players in an effort for Homestate U to win a few football games? And that the NCAA spends millions trying to keep it from happening? What would a rational person hearing about all this for the first time make of these shenanigans?This is very amusing, sort of like trying to figure out how to explain the human sex act to a visitor from another planet.

You have to understand a trial. You can't just assume something like boosters pay kids money everyone knows it. You have to lay a foundation and define it. So she could be doing that.

 

[roadkill1292]

Does Judge Wilken really not know what an athletic booster is?

Mike Fish

Judge Wilken doesn't get the third party issue - boosters, street agents

Is it possible that she doesn't even know that there are tons of people out there willing to throw money at players in an effort for Homestate U to win a few football games? And that the NCAA spends millions trying to keep it from happening? What would a rational person hearing about all this for the first time make of these shenanigans?This is very amusing, sort of like trying to figure out how to explain the human sex act to a visitor from another planet.

You have to understand a trial. You can't just assume something like boosters pay kids money everyone knows it. You have to lay a foundation and define it. So she could be doing that.

What if the judge really doesn't know that this goes on? Let's assume she really doesn't know a thing about how college sports operate and she's only now finding out that people want to give the players lots of money and the schools won't let them take it. What conclusion does she draw upon hearing about this for the first time?

I'm sure you're right, that this is mostly a procedural thingie. But it seems to me that plaintiffs got themselves the right judge. If she's hearing about this stuff for the first time, she's gotta be thinking "man, this is effed up."

And has the "we can't pay you even if you deserve to get paid because we're not making a profit" defense ever worked?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does Judge Wilken really not know what an athletic booster is?

Mike Fish

Judge Wilken doesn't get the third party issue - boosters, street agents

Is it possible that she doesn't even know that there are tons of people out there willing to throw money at players in an effort for Homestate U to win a few football games? And that the NCAA spends millions trying to keep it from happening? What would a rational person hearing about all this for the first time make of these shenanigans?This is very amusing, sort of like trying to figure out how to explain the human sex act to a visitor from another planet.

You have to understand a trial. You can't just assume something like boosters pay kids money everyone knows it. You have to lay a foundation and define it. So she could be doing that.

What if the judge really doesn't know that this goes on? Let's assume she really doesn't know a thing about how college sports operate and she's only now finding out that people want to give the players lots of money and the schools won't let them take it. What conclusion does she draw upon hearing about this for the first time?

I'm sure you're right, that this is mostly a procedural thingie. But it seems to me that plaintiffs got themselves the right judge. If she's hearing about this stuff for the first time, she's gotta be thinking "man, this is effed up."

And has the "we can't pay you even if you deserve to get paid because we're not making a profit" defense ever worked?

You actually have to assume that the judge has no idea. Just like you have to assume the jury doesn't either. Start from ground zero and build the entire case.

And if she has half a brain in her head the only conclusion she should be able to draw is that the NCAA is a farce and needs to lose this lawsuit.

 

[roadkill1292]

Trial has concluded. Plaintiffs may not have done a great job identifying the specific parts of anti-trust that are being violated. Judge Wilken apparently weighing the merits of who would be harmed the most by letting athletes make money. Schools' biggest arguments appear to be that their sports won't be as popular if the players make some money.

Verdict due in mid-August, most observers calling it 50-50, looking for a compromised decision from the judge. Appeals are a certainty.

How long can the schools keep fending off these challenges? Will they ever get a definitive decision that puts an end to them? I have trouble seeing that happening with the size of the checks that are written every year for college sports.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Trial has concluded. Plaintiffs may not have done a great job identifying the specific parts of anti-trust that are being violated. Judge Wilken apparently weighing the merits of who would be harmed the most by letting athletes make money. Schools' biggest arguments appear to be that their sports won't be as popular if the players make some money.

Verdict due in mid-August, most observers calling it 50-50, looking for a compromised decision from the judge. Appeals are a certainty.

How long can the schools keep fending off these challenges? Will they ever get a definitive decision that puts an end to them? I have trouble seeing that happening with the size of the checks that are written every year for college sports.

How long? Forever. They have an unlimited amount of money and if they want to they can fight until the bitter end because there will never be an injunction that stops all NCAA althetics until a decision is reached.

Final decision once and for all? It won't come from a court - it will come from a combination of revolt by the players and top end schools breaking away and or threatening the NCAA to make the changes. Assuming this judge tries to split the baby instead of take a massive spike and just end it once and for all.

There conitnues to be an easy fix to everything NCAA that doesn't require anything close to crushing Title IX, losing amatuerism, blah blah blah, changing the great collegel football level of competition and parity that only people who are blind deaf and dumb see and anything else they come up with. Keep the very same system they have now for all collegiate athletics. Everything. Exactly the same. Remove the penalties for impermissible benefits. That's it. If Deion Sanders takes AJ Green to lunch good on him. If Booster Bob wants to buy Reggie Bush's mom a house. Good on his mom. That's it. Colleges don't have to pay anything.

As for the video game and jersey aspect of all of this - that is easy - the money that you could figure out would go to the player instead goes to a general fund for health care benefits for college ahtletes for life or some such length of time.

But, instead, we have this so burn it all to the ground and dance on the ashes please.

 

[roadkill1292]

Schools aren't fighting athletes receiving outside income because they're worried about fan interest declining. Everybody know that's BS except for a few unimaginative people on message boards. Schools fear the re-direction of dollars that ordinarily might have come to them and loss of power over the players if the outside benefits they receive are greater than the benefits they receive from the schools.

 

[MattFancy]

Couldn't the schools almost make more money if they decide to pay the players? They could sell jerseys then and of course take a cut from that. Plus you know the schools with big money boosters would be shelling out money to make sure their schools can afford the top guys. I don't really think they would lose that much money. Could be wrong I guess.

 

[roadkill1292]

Couldn't the schools almost make more money if they decide to pay the players? They could sell jerseys then and of course take a cut from that. Plus you know the schools with big money boosters would be shelling out money to make sure their schools can afford the top guys. I don't really think they would lose that much money. Could be wrong I guess.

Schools will continue to haul in the monster bucks as long as they keep putting a good product out on the field and have lots of pompom wavers in the stands to make a pretty picture for the television cameras. Players getting financial help from Nike or T. Boone Pickens won't matter a lick to the people watching at that moment and if anybody here or anywhere else wants to tell you that he'll be less interested because now they're not, you know, amateurs is simply self-delusional. The schools don't have to give them a ###### penny of their state's scarce resources if they don't want to and they don't want to mess up the academic relationship with the athletes.

Actually, I think the next wave of lawsuits will be from non-athlete students, suing the school for charging them a separate activities fee while they use it to pay other students.

 

[gump]

Couldn't the schools almost make more money if they decide to pay the players? They could sell jerseys then and of course take a cut from that. Plus you know the schools with big money boosters would be shelling out money to make sure their schools can afford the top guys. I don't really think they would lose that much money. Could be wrong I guess.

Schools can sell player jerseys now, but mostly choose not to. It will be interesting to see if a change opens up a market that to date they don't think is worth much.

 

[MattFancy]

Couldn't the schools almost make more money if they decide to pay the players? They could sell jerseys then and of course take a cut from that. Plus you know the schools with big money boosters would be shelling out money to make sure their schools can afford the top guys. I don't really think they would lose that much money. Could be wrong I guess.

Schools can sell player jerseys now, but mostly choose not to. It will be interesting to see if a change opens up a market that to date they don't think is worth much.

Well they can sell jerseys, but they don't have the names on the back. Think of how many Manziel jerseys A&M would have sold if they could've had his name on them. Same with Florida and Tebow.

 

[gump]

Couldn't the schools almost make more money if they decide to pay the players? They could sell jerseys then and of course take a cut from that. Plus you know the schools with big money boosters would be shelling out money to make sure their schools can afford the top guys. I don't really think they would lose that much money. Could be wrong I guess.

Schools can sell player jerseys now, but mostly choose not to. It will be interesting to see if a change opens up a market that to date they don't think is worth much.

Well they can sell jerseys, but they don't have the names on the back. Think of how many Manziel jerseys A&M would have sold if they could've had his name on them. Same with Florida and Tebow.

The school can use the #2 though, which TAMU did. Florida allowed #15 when Tebow was there, and it was relatively big.

Adding a name would not be a huge boost now to the business as it is now, IMO.

 

[MattFancy]

Couldn't the schools almost make more money if they decide to pay the players? They could sell jerseys then and of course take a cut from that. Plus you know the schools with big money boosters would be shelling out money to make sure their schools can afford the top guys. I don't really think they would lose that much money. Could be wrong I guess.

Schools can sell player jerseys now, but mostly choose not to. It will be interesting to see if a change opens up a market that to date they don't think is worth much.

Well they can sell jerseys, but they don't have the names on the back. Think of how many Manziel jerseys A&M would have sold if they could've had his name on them. Same with Florida and Tebow.

The school can use the #2 though, which TAMU did. Florida allowed #15 when Tebow was there, and it was relatively big.

Adding a name would not be a huge boost now to the business as it is now, IMO.

Actually, last month the NCAA decided to stop selling jerseys all together: http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/ncaa-player-jerseys-will-not-sell-anymore-says-president-mark-emmert-080813

 

[RUSF18]

Couldn't the schools almost make more money if they decide to pay the players? They could sell jerseys then and of course take a cut from that. Plus you know the schools with big money boosters would be shelling out money to make sure their schools can afford the top guys. I don't really think they would lose that much money. Could be wrong I guess.

Schools can sell player jerseys now, but mostly choose not to. It will be interesting to see if a change opens up a market that to date they don't think is worth much.

Well they can sell jerseys, but they don't have the names on the back. Think of how many Manziel jerseys A&M would have sold if they could've had his name on them. Same with Florida and Tebow.

The school can use the #2 though, which TAMU did. Florida allowed #15 when Tebow was there, and it was relatively big.

Adding a name would not be a huge boost now to the business as it is now, IMO.

Actually, last month the NCAA decided to stop selling jerseys all together: http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/ncaa-player-jerseys-will-not-sell-anymore-says-president-mark-emmert-080813

The official NCAA store isn't selling jerseys anymore. Schools still are though, and the decision was on the back of Bilas with the help of Twitter publicizing that you could search for players through the NCAA site and their jerseys come up for sale. It was incredibly embarrassing for the NCAA and if I was the judge, I'd rule against them just for that moronic move.

 

[The Commish]

Scholarships for Life!!!!

 

[roadkill1292]

Word is that the NCAA has hired a (nother?) high powered lobbying firm to glad hand Congress, where there is already a cadre of sympathetic (mostly) Republicans. Fearing a loss in court, either in the current case or ensuing ones (Kessler!), the schools are trying the old pro sports' end run of procuring an antitrust exemption.

During the O'Bannon trial, NCAA attorneys reportedly asked Judge Wilken if they could play the "One Shining Moment" video from the basketball tournament, which the judge quite logically refused. The schools may yet win all or parts of this suit but being decided by a judge who knows almost nothing about sports can't be encouraging to them -- their argument is based on tradition and emotion, not constitutional law.

My guess -- they won't have to share tv money with the players but the judge will issue an injunction that prevents the schools from restricting athletes from receiving/earning money from third parties.

 

[roadkill1292]

ESPN.com's Lester Munson shares my opinion that a split decision is looming. He thinks that the players will win the right to market their own likenesses but the schools won't be compelled to share TV money with them. However, it's possible that she could abolish the schools' agreements not to pay players. They wouldn't have to but they could if they wanted to on a school by school basis.

The schools did a lousy job at trial of justifying why it would be harmful for athletes to get money from somewhere but of course IMO it's an indefensible position to begin with.

 

[Christo]

So, it's not going to bring down the NCAA?

 

[roadkill1292]

The NCAA will still have a nice little niche of organizing regional and national championships. It might even have a say in enforcement of academic requirements because some of the few remaining rules will center on the requirement that athletes be academically eligible to play.

But its amateurism enforcement wing will no longer be a necessity. I don't know how much of its budget that part soaks up but it constitutes an awful lot of the organization's power.

 

[Premier]

"Nice little niche"

26 million people watched the national title game this January. And that was a low number. Far exceeds any other sport other than NFL.

 

[Christo]

Yeah, roadkill is letting his bias show from under his skirt.

 

[roadkill1292]

I've been pretty clear about where I stand on this issue. I want the players to win all these lawsuits. If somebody thinks the schools should and will prevail then let's hear the arguments.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Scholarships for Life!!!!

You are laughing because thoughtful people held that position 30 years ago? Though it was mostly due to the almost 0% graduation rates in basketball back then. You know the promise of "we'll give you an education if you play for us".

 

[roadkill1292]

"Nice little niche"

26 million people watched the national title game this January. And that was a low number. Far exceeds any other sport other than NFL.

The "niche" is the NCAA's administrative functions. Popularity of college football, as you have noted, won't lessen (despite what the fan polls say) but the schools will reap the bulk of those financial benefits, not the NCAA (and especially not once the schools get tired of being clipped by the NCAA for the men's basketball tourney).

Big 12 commish Bob Bowlsby charged the NCAA today with slacking on the enforcement front.

"Enforcement is broken," he said. "The infractions committee hasn't had a hearing in almost a year, and I think it's not an understatement to say cheating pays presently. If you seek to conspire to certainly bend the rules, you can do it successfully and probably not get caught in most occasions."

This is a little like cops not busting marijuana possession while the state legislature debates the issue.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Judge rules NCAA in violation of anti-trust laws in O'Bannon suit.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

"Nice little niche"

26 million people watched the national title game this January. And that was a low number. Far exceeds any other sport other than NFL.

But, but, but, they are getting free school!!!

 

[GregR]

With the limits chosen by the judge on the amount of the payments it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling. Though sounds like both sides will probably end up appealing it.

 

[Premier]

"Nice little niche"

26 million people watched the national title game this January. And that was a low number. Far exceeds any other sport other than NFL.

But, but, but, they are getting free school!!!

Wha?Players should definitely get paid. Sounds like this is a step closer.

 

[Premier]

With the limits chosen by the judge on the amount of the payments it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling. Though sounds like both sides will probably end up appealing it.

Yup. And a lot of this is going to be moot once the Big 5 conferences agree to their stipends.

 

[gump]

With the limits chosen by the judge on the amount of the payments it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling. Though sounds like both sides will probably end up appealing it.

Yup. And a lot of this is going to be moot once the Big 5 conferences agree to their stipends.

COA = $4k / semester

 

[Politician Spock]

With the limits chosen by the judge on the amount of the payments it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling. Though sounds like both sides will probably end up appealing it.

Seems like the judge knew the NCAA's rukes are wrong, but put the $5000 option in to pass on the responsibility of unraveling the system to the next judge who has to hear the case that $5000 is just an amount pulled out of the judge's ###.

 

[roadkill1292]

With the limits chosen by the judge on the amount of the payments it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling. Though sounds like both sides will probably end up appealing it.

Seems like the judge knew the NCAA's rukes are wrong, but put the $5000 option in to pass on the responsibility of unraveling the system to the next judge who has to hear the case that $5000 is just an amount pulled out of the judge's ###.

Yes. I think both sides will appeal the somewhat arbitrary cap. Especially since she ruled that individual schools could offer less as long as they don't "conspire" with others when they do. What does that mean? If Conference USA decides that they will only offer recruits $2,000, is that conspiring?

Plus she upheld the schools' right to restrict outside earnings, at least as it applies to NIL. A school can still prevent kids from earning endorsement money but what about autographs?

The NIL and gifts from boosters are battles that remain to be fought, and will be. Lester Munson of ESPN.com wrote that finding the schools in violation of anti-trust laws won half of Jeffrey Kessler's case for him; now he can concentrate on overturning the rest of the restrictions in detail. His suit is still three or four years away from being heard, though.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

"Nice little niche"

26 million people watched the national title game this January. And that was a low number. Far exceeds any other sport other than NFL.

But, but, but, they are getting free school!!!

Wha?Players should definitely get paid. Sounds like this is a step closer.

Sarcasm.

I love the South Park episode on how the NCAA screws the kids over. It's pretty awesome.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Scholarships for Life!!!!

The "Maryland Way"

Calling it the “Maryland Way Guarantee,” the school will guarantee financial aid through graduation for varsity athletes, including for those who complete their eligibility or are injured and unable to continue competing.

Athletes who depart the school in good academic standing and later wish to return and complete degree work also will be provided with tuition, books and fees.

 

[The Commish]

Figured this was the best place for this. Is anyone listening to what Emmert is saying anymore??

Link

There's a whole bunch in that article worth the read just to see his responses, but as it pertains to the topic of this thread, I couldn't help but laugh at this part:

Q: So give players representation. We already know that happens in baseball, although NCAA rules still restrict those players to an extent.

Emmert: I think that's what I'm talking about. … I'm more than happy to have us all consider what should the model look like in relationship between us and professional sports leagues. OK, if you go play a year in the D-League, does that mean you never, ever come back to college to play? I don't know. Maybe that's something we need to think about.

Q: So if a player gets drafted and goes to the D-League, you'd be OK with the player returning to play in college?

Emmert: I'm open to consider that. But again, that's me and not the members. I'm sure coaches would have their concerns about that and I understand why. You wouldn't want it to be a revolving door that one year I'm here, the next year I'm in the D-League. You'd have to structure it.

 

[Doug B]

So ... how long is it supposed to take for the NCAA to be brought down?

And what will this bringing-down look like? No NCAA at all? No NCAA, but something similar steps into the breach? NCAA stays around, but in a radically different form?

Is the NCAA still useful for non-revenue sports, but the revenue sports need to go their own way?