Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (1 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 13  Next >

Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Trial Date - June 9th)

Avatar

Posted: 1/30/2013 11:17 AM

Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Trial Date - June 9th) 


Once again, the judge sides with the O'Bannon team.

espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/i...elevision-money

In dismissing a motion by the NCAA to prevent football and men's basketball players from legally pursuing a cut of live broadcast revenues, a federal court judge Tuesday raised the stakes for the governing body of college sports as it defends its economic model.

Judge Claudia Wilken issued her ruling Tuesday, rejecting the NCAA's motion that players in the antitrust suit led by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon should be precluded from advancing their lawsuit on procedural grounds..

"Now the (NCAA and its co-defendants) are facing potential liability that's based on the billions of dollars in revenue instead of tens or hundreds of millions," said Michael Hausfeld, interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "It's a more accurate context for what the players deserve."

Last edited 4/12/2014 10:35 AM by wrcwolf

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/31/2013 4:12 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (1/29) 


Power to Ed.The NCAA has to be taken down a couple of pegs.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2013 1:27 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 


www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8...obannon-vs-ncaa

By and large, the people charged with running our various sports conglomerates have proven through history to be as incapable of taking the long view of their own survival as the average brachiosaurus was. They blunder around, eating whatever comes under their noses, trampling the scenery and hooting loudly into the wind. They never see the meteor coming.

Years before baseball's reserve clause finally fell of its own historical inequities, Bill Veeck told his fellow owners that they should get rid of it themselves, so as to cushion the shock and to manage the aftermath to their own advantage. He was ignored and, when various courts and arbitrators blew up the system, baseball descended into a chaotic labor-management nightmare that (in many ways) has yet to resolve itself. I thought of Veeck last month when a couple of things happened that made it even more plain that the meteor is coming for college sports, and right quickly, too.

There was a time, and not that long ago, when a soft landing could have been arranged. Just as the question of ancillary profits was always the weakest part of the case for the status quo, a commonsensical deal cut on the basis of those profits also could have been the easiest way out. You get the scholarship, we get your work and the gate revenues derived from it. But, if you play well enough that we can sell your jersey or your picture — or, more controversially, if you play well enough that we rake in the big TV money — you get a good slice of those extra revenues, which we will put into a temporary trust for you after you graduate, and from which you will continue to profit as long as we still use your likeness. (O'Bannon's lawyers made just such a proposal a key part of one of their motions against the NCAA.) Hardly anyone would have complained, even though some adjustments would have to have been worked out as regards the non-revenue sport athletes and the provisions of Title IX. The point is that a deal could have been struck, just as baseball could have diminished the impact of the collapse of the reserve system. But that time has passed.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2013 1:50 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 


Bottom line question: How would "paying" players affect us? Us being fans & Wolfpack Club donors.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2013 2:02 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 



IMFletcherWolf wrote: Bottom line question: How would "paying" players affect us? Us being fans & Wolfpack Club donors.

if you took this to the extreme then paying players their true market value would ruin college sports totally and people will view them as what they truly are, minor leagues to the pros

Would you pay 1000s of dollars a year for Wolfpack football and basketball seats to watch a minor league team play?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2013 2:19 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 


How is this any different than a grad student who works on some blockbuster piece of medical research?

As a grad student I am offered a stipend and a scholarship and access to great facilities and teachers/researchers in my field.  In exchange I sign away all rights from any discoveries I make while doing research for the university.

The university could make BILLIONS off of my research and still I would have no rights to any of that money.

Also I am not a lawyer, but it looks like this is a long way from settled.  It appears that they case was just not dismissed out of hand for procedural reasons,

I never had any large respect for good spelling. ---Mark Twain

Last edited 2/6/2013 2:22 PM by eccdogg

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2013 2:23 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 



eccdogg wrote: How is this any different than a grad student who works on some blockbuster piece of medical research?

As a grad student I am offered a stipend and a scholarship and access to great facilities and teachers/researchers in my field.  In exchange I sign away all rights from any discoveries I make while doing research for the university.

The university could make BILLIONS off of my research and still I would have no rights to any of that money.

Also I am not a lawyer, but it looks like this is a long way from settled.  It appears that they case was just not dismissed out of hand for procedural reasons,

As a grad student you can get all the outside income you want and nobody cares.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2013 3:03 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 


Not if it is related to your research.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good fences make good neighbors."

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2013 3:04 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 


^^Really?  I am not sure that is the case.  I know in many cases moonlighting while you were in grad school would be frowned upon.  I had to get explicit permission to work part time at my old employer while I was on assistantship.  And I am pretty sure it was not allowed in my wife's program. 

But the same reasoning applies to my company.  They own my work product if I design a process that makes billions for my company I have no ownership rights to it. And my company definitely has the right to tell me that they don't want me getting paid for another job or endorsing products.

I never had any large respect for good spelling. ---Mark Twain

Last edited 2/6/2013 3:09 PM by eccdogg

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/6/2013 3:21 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 


Unless the University has a specific policy against it, like Wake Forest (personal experience), than you can absolutely moon light and earn as much money as you want. What about all those companies who pay people their full salary to go back to school?

The major difference between graduate school and athletes is that at the end of day the major product the athlete is working on is "themselves" while in graduate school the major product is the research itself. The company/governmental body sponsoring your research does not own you just your work. The NCAA effectively owns the athlete. You can switch research labs, projects, advisers  schools without a problem the athlete doesn't have that same right.
eccdogg wrote: ^^Really?  I am not sure that is the case.  I know in many cases moonlighting while you were in grad school would be frowned upon.

But the same reasoning applies to my company.  They own my work product if I design a process that makes billions for my company I have no ownership rights to it. And my company definitely has the right to tell me that they don't want me getting paid for another job or endorsing products.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/7/2013 11:36 AM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequence) 


Obviously jumping the gun here, but here's an analysis of the possible ramifications of an O'Bannon court win on the Pac-12 and SEC from the Winthorp Think Tank.


winthropintelligence.com/2013/...ete-trust-fund/
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/7/2013 12:28 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 



wrcwolf wrote: www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8...obannon-vs-ncaa

By and large, the people charged with running our various sports conglomerates have proven through history to be as incapable of taking the long view of their own survival as the average brachiosaurus was. They blunder around, eating whatever comes under their noses, trampling the scenery and hooting loudly into the wind. They never see the meteor coming.

Years before baseball's reserve clause finally fell of its own historical inequities, Bill Veeck told his fellow owners that they should get rid of it themselves, so as to cushion the shock and to manage the aftermath to their own advantage. He was ignored and, when various courts and arbitrators blew up the system, baseball descended into a chaotic labor-management nightmare that (in many ways) has yet to resolve itself. I thought of Veeck last month when a couple of things happened that made it even more plain that the meteor is coming for college sports, and right quickly, too.

There was a time, and not that long ago, when a soft landing could have been arranged. Just as the question of ancillary profits was always the weakest part of the case for the status quo, a commonsensical deal cut on the basis of those profits also could have been the easiest way out. You get the scholarship, we get your work and the gate revenues derived from it. But, if you play well enough that we can sell your jersey or your picture — or, more controversially, if you play well enough that we rake in the big TV money — you get a good slice of those extra revenues, which we will put into a temporary trust for you after you graduate, and from which you will continue to profit as long as we still use your likeness. (O'Bannon's lawyers made just such a proposal a key part of one of their motions against the NCAA.) Hardly anyone would have complained, even though some adjustments would have to have been worked out as regards the non-revenue sport athletes and the provisions of Title IX. The point is that a deal could have been struck, just as baseball could have diminished the impact of the collapse of the reserve system. But that time has passed.


While I have always been a great opponent of any general pay to play senarios I have to abmit that the money made on a specific players name/likeness is the money that makes the most sense to split with the player.  I'm not sure how to walk the line on that but I'm sure something could be worked out.  For example I have one of the stadium game shots as a framed picture on my wall.  I am sure there are specific players in the picture, some possibly even identifiable due to numbers, should each of them have gotten a cut of the proceeds from that sale under that kind of arrangement, doubtful.  However the sales of a Zo Brown Jeresy should, if that arrangment was made, be pretty cut and dry.  As said above, if that was worked out on their own without lawsuits then wherever they drew the line would probably fly, now who knows.

I still say that if you look at the total volume of money generated and spread it out over all athletes it's hard to say that they aren't being given the oportunity to get their money's worth just by getting a free education. 


Are men's football and basketball subsidizing the other athletes, yes but english majors somewhat subsidize engineering majors too, that's just how the college model works. 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/7/2013 12:32 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 


good 1 page story on the lawsuit in this week's Sports Illustrated, will not be online until next week, I think

page 18

FB prediction (2010) 3-9, 1-7 (2011) 5-7, 2-6 (2012) 7-5, 4-4, (2013) 7-5, 4-4
MBB prediction: (2010-11) 21-9,10-6 (2011-12) 19-12, 7-9 (2012-13) 24-7,12-6


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/7/2013 12:48 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 


For any legal people out there.....could the NCAA just essentially say hey look, these guys are entering into a contract where they play ball and we give a free education, nothing more, nothing less.  If they want to get paid to play, they have other options like the NBDL or Europe i.e. we're not the only game in town.



---
You know you're winning big when a football player can talk to girls on the sideline during a college football game.

-11/22/08 B. Rozinski referring to Robbie Leonard during 41-10 pasting of UNCCH
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/7/2013 12:55 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 



HackerWolf wrote: For any legal people out there.....could the NCAA just essentially say hey look, these guys are entering into a contract where they play ball and we give a free education, nothing more, nothing less.  If they want to get paid to play, they have other options like the NBDL or Europe i.e. we're not the only game in town.
from the SI article

Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson have joined as plaintiffs, which helps O'Bannon's case

NCAA has tried 3 times since 2009 to have case dismissed, and failed all 3 times

this, to my untrained legal mind, hurts NCCA more than anything
EA sports pays NFL players $35 million a year for rights to use images in their games

FB prediction (2010) 3-9, 1-7 (2011) 5-7, 2-6 (2012) 7-5, 4-4, (2013) 7-5, 4-4
MBB prediction: (2010-11) 21-9,10-6 (2011-12) 19-12, 7-9 (2012-13) 24-7,12-6


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/7/2013 1:08 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 



HackerWolf wrote: For any legal people out there.....could the NCAA just essentially say hey look, these guys are entering into a contract where they play ball and we give a free education, nothing more, nothing less.  If they want to get paid to play, they have other options like the NBDL or Europe i.e. we're not the only game in town.
Not a lawyer, but this is my thought as well.  The NCAA will just add a waiver to the LOI to play at an NCAA school.  The player waives all rights to revenues generated in exchange for the scholarship and a spot on the team.

If they don't like the terms they are free to walk away.

If the plaintiffs aren't careful they will kill the golden goose.  Of course all the lawyers are interested in is a pay day.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/7/2013 1:10 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 



RedLight wrote:
If the plaintiffs aren't careful they will kill the golden goose.  Of course all the lawyers are interested in is a pay day.

That is the problem... the plaintiffs dont have access to the golden goose. So, if they kill it, so what?  It hurts future players, schools and fans. It doesnt hurt former players if college sports ended.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/7/2013 1:22 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 


^^ That waiver is already in existence. That's what the case is about.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli...-statement.html

The "killing the golden goose" mantra was said in MLB (reserve clause), NFL (free agency), Tennis (amateurism) and the IOC (amateurism). In all those cases, not only has that been proven wrong, but all involved in those organizations prospered even more after they lifted those restrictions. It's called "capitalism".
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/18/2013 2:47 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 


Recent filings from the NCAA.

How much does Wake Forest pay Wellman, Grobe and Bzzz annually?

m.usatoday.com/article/news/19...ViewMode=single

Lawyers for the NCAA wrote in a federal-court filing Thursday that if the association's current amateurism rules were lifted, as proposed in a lawsuit pertaining to the use of college athletes' names, likeness and images, some schools might exit Division I or Bowl Subdivision football because of the financial and legal burden that would result from needing to share revenue with football and men's basketball players.

Wake Forest "might cease playing Division I or Football Bowl Subdivision sports entirely if pay-for-play became a reality," says a statement from university president Nathan Hatch.

Hatch's statement in Thursday's filing said: "Instituting a pay-for-play model, even if the payments are deferred to after graduation would change the nature of the relationship Wake Forest has with its football and men's basketball student-athletes. It would, essentially, turn those teams into professional squads. That would not be acceptable to Wake Forest."

The NCAA said in a statement Friday: "The filing shows that the theories of the plaintiffs are not supported by facts, economics or the law. It further demonstrates that plaintiffs should not be allowed to pursue a class action based on inaccurate theories and speculations aimed at destroying amateurism in college athletics."



And the annual look at the NCAA by the news organizations around March Madness. This one comes from CBS News. I'm sure the sports dept at CBS is wondering why the news dept is going after one of it's premier properties.

www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-5...-on-player-pay/
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/18/2013 2:54 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 



wolfer79 wrote:
HackerWolf wrote: For any legal people out there.....could the NCAA just essentially say hey look, these guys are entering into a contract where they play ball and we give a free education, nothing more, nothing less.  If they want to get paid to play, they have other options like the NBDL or Europe i.e. we're not the only game in town.
from the SI article

Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson have joined as plaintiffs, which helps O'Bannon's case

NCAA has tried 3 times since 2009 to have case dismissed, and failed all 3 times

this, to my untrained legal mind, hurts NCCA more than anything
EA sports pays NFL players $35 million a year for rights to use images in their games

Wolfer,  how is the EA money divided up?  Does the $35 million from EA sports go into a pool divided equally by players used in the games, or is the amount received based on longevity, productivity, etc?

I could see the ncaa possibly using one of their formulas to distribute college players' revenue.

______________________________________________________________________________
Hot women, good bourbon and a good grill is all a man needs.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/18/2013 3:06 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 



wolfer79 wrote:
HackerWolf wrote: For any legal people out there.....could the NCAA just essentially say hey look, these guys are entering into a contract where they play ball and we give a free education, nothing more, nothing less.  If they want to get paid to play, they have other options like the NBDL or Europe i.e. we're not the only game in town.
from the SI article

Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson have joined as plaintiffs, which helps O'Bannon's case

NCAA has tried 3 times since 2009 to have case dismissed, and failed all 3 times

this, to my untrained legal mind, hurts NCCA more than anything
EA sports pays NFL players $35 million a year for rights to use images in their games
Adding those two big name former players can't hurt the cause. That said, I know The Big O's company has been through some tough financial times and Russell is one of the most cantankerous people you could ever come across. I can't imagine either of them is adding much to the cost of the suit.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/18/2013 3:13 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 



EasternNCstyleBBQueWolf wrote:
wolfer79 wrote:

this, to my untrained legal mind, hurts NCCA more than anything
EA sports pays NFL players $35 million a year for rights to use images in their games

Wolfer,  how is the EA money divided up?  Does the $35 million from EA sports go into a pool divided equally by players used in the games, or is the amount received based on longevity, productivity, etc?

I could see the ncaa possibly using one of their formulas to distribute college players' revenue.
google search EA Sports NFL does not help much

The NFL Players Association, which signed a companion EA deal for rights to the players, reaps regularly between $30 million and $40 million annually, according to the union’s annual filings with the Labor Department.
 

The league deal allows EA to use team colors, names and logos.



FB prediction (2010) 3-9, 1-7 (2011) 5-7, 2-6 (2012) 7-5, 4-4, (2013) 7-5, 4-4
MBB prediction: (2010-11) 21-9,10-6 (2011-12) 19-12, 7-9 (2012-13) 24-7,12-6


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/18/2013 3:14 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 



IMFletcherWolf wrote: Bottom line question: How would "paying" players affect us? Us being fans & Wolfpack Club donors.

if we pay players, then Title IX kicks in and we have to pay the girls softball team too. Then the economic model breaks.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/18/2013 3:20 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


Its ironic.  But many of the defenses used for the NCAA are the same used for other outdated business models.

Plantation system
Piece work
Child labor
Company towns

Need I go on.  You can substitute any of those for into the WFU argument and get a blast from the past"

Wake Forest "might cease playing [The Plantation system] entirely if pay-for-[Work] became a reality," says a statement from university president Nathan Hatch.

Hatch's statement in Thursday's filing said: "Instituting a pay-for-[work] model, even if the payments are deferred to after graduation would change the nature of the relationship Wake Forest has with its [plantation] and [labor force]. It would, essentially, turn those [plantation systems] into professional squads. That would not be acceptable to Wake Forest."

I'm always amazed at businesses that fight tooth and nail to move on when the mode of production is out of date.

For those of you young nubies looking to make a mark in the world, the corporate world is not much better.  I've had non-competes put on me, signed patents away for a $1, etc.  All I can say is that when my new job was offered, and they put those on the table, I was very clear.  A non-compete would cost you 1 year of non-negotiable severance, regardless of who ended the job.  Put it in writing and then I'll sign.  Needless to say, they passed, and I gained my flexibility.  Remember everything is negotiable.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/18/2013 4:31 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


The NFL today announces a settlement with retired players in a similar case, although O'Bannon vs NCAA has evolved to more claims and a bigger lawsuit, for $42 million. Case was Fred Dryer vs NFL. Sgt. Rick Hunter always got his man on the TV show and it appears Dryer carried that over into real life in this case.

From the Cliff Clavin file, Dryer was close to becoming Sam Malone on Cheers before landing the Hunter role. Does Fred Dryer get the money Ted Danson eventually got from the Sam Malone character?

From Gabe Feldman:

- As part of settlement, NFL will set up licensing agency for retired player publicity rights,fund it w/ $8M, & give $42M for medical needs.

Official release from NFL:

nflretireepublicitysettlement.com/
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/18/2013 4:51 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 



IMFletcherWolf wrote: Bottom line question: How would "paying" players affect us? Us being fans & Wolfpack Club donors.

Ticket prices and WPC dues would increase substatially.  There would be a marked decrease in non-revenue sports scholarships.

They are already paid, they get free education, housing, food, medical, per diem, etc.
 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/18/2013 5:26 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 



Riddickfield wrote:
IMFletcherWolf wrote: Bottom line question: How would "paying" players affect us? Us being fans & Wolfpack Club donors.

Ticket prices and WPC dues would increase substatially.  There would be a marked decrease in non-revenue sports scholarships.

They are already paid, they get free education, housing, food, medical, per diem, etc.
Teams like Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma St. with wealthy donors and large booster clubs would dominate smaller schools with smaller donor bases.  Don't know where we stack up nationally, but I would guess somewhere in the middle.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/18/2013 5:58 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 



flair1 wrote:
IMFletcherWolf wrote: Bottom line question: How would "paying" players affect us? Us being fans & Wolfpack Club donors.

if you took this to the extreme then paying players their true market value would ruin college sports totally and people will view them as what they truly are, minor leagues to the pros

Would you pay 1000s of dollars a year for Wolfpack football and basketball seats to watch a minor league team play?
We already pay 1000s of dollars a year.

"PackBand88 is very wise." - mark4java 11/18/08

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:57 PM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


The Big Ten's Jim Delany says he thinks his schools will drop to the Division III model should O'Bannon win this case. Ok, I can live with that. Pick one, be the amateur activity you claim to be or define yourself by what you actually are, a professional sports organization. Of course, he's lying or maybe the ACC will take Ohio St, Michigan and Penn St from them in expansion. Going to be difficult getting the media providers to televise a Division III Big Ten Network. Wonder if he discussed this with News Corp before offering this filing?

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/coll.../#ixzz2NwSUJXWI

"...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."

In an interview Monday, Delany told SI.com that much of the wording in his declaration came from an op-ed he wrote for the NCAA News in 1996. He believes now as he believed then: A pay-for-play model involving contracts and individual negotiations with players would not interest the schools of the Big Ten.

"It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany said. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option. ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."


Staples response:

If the Big Ten schools dropped athletic scholarships and moved to Division III or into the non-scholarship FCS realm occupied by the schools of the Ivy and Pioneer leagues, it would inject some intellectual honesty into this debate. Schools and leagues say they want to run amateur sports that enrich the collegiate experience, but then they run football and men's basketball like professional sports. This would mean a group of 14 schools leaving millions of dollars on the table to run true amateur athletic programs that exist only to enhance the university experience of their students.

If this happened, I would stand and applaud. Finally, someone would be putting higher education ahead of high finance. But the actions of the Big Ten's presidents in the past few years make it difficult to believe they would follow the example of the Ivy League schools and Big Ten founding member the University of Chicago, which de-emphasized sports in the 1940s.

Five months ago, the presidents of the Big Ten schools voted to poach Maryland from the ACC and Rutgers from the Big East. They did not do this because the football or men's basketball teams at Maryland and Rutgers offer a terrible amount of value to a wealthy league already chock full of brand names. The value to the Big Ten lies in the location of those schools, which sit in heavily populated metropolitan areas. That means those areas boast more cable subscribers who, Big Ten leaders hope, will soon have to pay more than $1 a month to their cable or satellite provider for the Big Ten Network -- whether they actually want that programming or not. Assuming the millions of subscribers who now find themselves in the Big Ten footprint are charged that fee, it will result in a massive financial windfall for the conference.


ACC filing through WF prez Hatch:

i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/i...3/130318.08.pdf

SEC filing through assoc commissioner:

i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/i...3/130318.06.pdf
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/19/2013 1:16 AM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


I still havent figured out why the NCAA schools didn't remove player names from Jerseys when this whole mess became an issue.

I would never change the jersey style (so a player can't be identified by uniform type) and claim the uniform and right to sell its likeness belongs to the school. Heck, number the uniforms 1-15 and rotate the player numbers every year.

For the other revenue, I would pay cost associated with staff, facilities and travel. Then donate the rest, in the entire teams name, to the schools non revenue sports and general scholarship fund.

This way the school never makes any profit off the players and the players get a charitable donation in their name. College sports survive and everybody wins.

If I follow the logic behind those wanting to play players, different scenarios come to mind. Say I place a bet on our bass fishing team to win and John Doe catches the biggest fish ever seen, causing our team to win. With this logic he should be able to claim I made money off his preformance and sue me for a cut.

Honestly, I think it is more the amount that is changing the debate in most peoples minds. If I made $20 on the bet noone would care. But if I made 2 billion? People see injustice much easier when the numbers someone gains is large. If college sports were generating 1/20th of what they do, this law suit would not exist, even if there was still a profit.

Last edited 3/19/2013 1:28 AM by Riverpack

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:05 AM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


Just another arms race all else is rhetoric. No body is going anywhere. The best corporate models will survive many in the field will be culled. Think NFL, NBA, MLB, drafts and all. Early entry contracts will have to be carefully structured and may undo Men's basketball and baseball. Physicality will allow college football to survive. Title IX will have to be revisited and should be anyway with so much private money already going in and more on the way surely the stockholders will not want to carry unprofitable capacity.
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives."
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:35 AM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


I've always been on the side of the players being entitled to a fair share of jersey sales and being compensated for their likenesses in posters, memorabilia and video games. The problem is that the NCAA is already unequipped (and in some cases, flat out unwilling) to deal with problems relating to players taking under the table as it is. Now you want to let these players dip their toes in a legal revenue stream that will be corrupted inside of ten minutes after it's passed?
Let's say you give a cut of jersey sales to a player while he plays college ball. Maybe something even as low as fifty cents per jersey sold goes into a trust for the player. As long as he is in good academic standing the money will go into said trust that the student can access upon graduation or when he turns 25. And a good RB recruit is deciding to attend Ohio St or Michigan. What's to stop the recruiters from working out a deal that one school's boosters will buy a million jerseys upon his LOI and then bury them in landfill somewhere. Also, that's a lot of RB's, QB's, LB's and WR's making money off jersey sales while the offensive linemen don't see a dime.
I feel like the NCAA is setting itself up for its own doomsday by not working day and night to come up with a solution to viably share some of this billion dollar pie with all of the athletes. They need to beg the NBA and NFL to drop their restrictions on players being eligible immediately after high school. They need to work with those leagues to allow kids to be drafted and then make the choice whether to sign or not. Because if they keep fighting this like they are by just insisting that there is no money for the players, the courts will inevitably rule that players like O'Bannon are due compensation. And when that happens, the sky's the limit for college players seeking compensation. No way to get the genie back in the bottle then.
Reply | Quote
  • FVHowler
  • Bench Warmer
  • 2354 posts this site

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:41 AM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Potential Financial Consequences Study) 


This is where I stand on all this.  No one forced athletes to attend college.  Many "student athletes" are using college athletics to market themselves to the professional level.  The best athletes get much more than an opportunity for a free education, room and board. 
HackerWolf wrote: For any legal people out there.....could the NCAA just essentially say hey look, these guys are entering into a contract where they play ball and we give a free education, nothing more, nothing less.  If they want to get paid to play, they have other options like the NBDL or Europe i.e. we're not the only game in town.
NC State was created to correct the Chapel Hill mistake.
Reply | Quote
  • alan76EE
  • Waterboy
  • 1244 posts this site

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:50 AM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (Charles Pierce (Grantland) article) 



IMFletcherWolf wrote: Bottom line question: How would "paying" players affect us? Us being fans & Wolfpack Club donors.
It would cost us a lot of money.  Or we'd lose a lot more.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:02 AM

Re: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


Be careful what you wish for...

This will just push it to a true minor league.  Then the players can enjoy life in the D league and little minor league football.

The stage, the built in fans, the elite facilities, the top of the line coaching, and the free education go away.

IIRC the original issue was Obannon didn't think it was right the NCAA should own his likeness forever (in a video game).

I could see paying guys if a product, like a video game, is made after they graduate and includes their likeness (ex. Legends mode and you can play with David Tompson).  Or you should give Burleson some money if you start selling his jersey now, or Hodge.

But giving them TV money....

I love college basketball and football.  I'm not going to invest time in the Raleigh Railhawks football team or the Raleigh Renegads basketball team.  Not time, not money, not eyes on TV.

Refuse to accept the status quo-Wolfpack Unlimited

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:10 AM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


Can someone give a Cliff's Notes version of what the plaintiffs are seeking?

Could someone explain how the system can survive if all players have to be paid anything beyond a basic stipend? Most athletic departments barely break with the current set up.

Would all athletes be paid or just the star football and mens basketball players?

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:14 AM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 



RedLight wrote: Can someone give a Cliff's Notes version of what the plaintiffs are seeking?

Could someone explain how the system can survive if all players have to be paid anything beyond a basic stipend? Most athletic departments barely break with the current set up.

Would all athletes be paid or just the star football and mens basketball players?

I'm with you. Based on what I think I know, this could kill college sports as we know it.  And my question would be, how can you pay players for only 2 sports? Wouldn't title 9 be a factor?

 Willingham said. “This chancellor has totally sold out.”"

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/19/2013 12:46 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 


Beuhler?

 Willingham said. “This chancellor has totally sold out.”"

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/19/2013 1:25 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 



OK, I went and looked and here is a very brief synopsis from SI:

"Plaintiffs in the O’Bannon suit sued the NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Company and EA Sports over the commercialized use of athletes’ image, name and likeness."


This is just in the preliminary stages and has a long way to go to get to a trial, if it ever does.  I still think the players are going to get hung up over their voluntarily agreeing to waive any claim to these revenues. No one forces them to play NCAA ball.  Just as no forces anyone to play in the NBA.  If they don't like the rules they can try their luck somewhere else. 

Athletes are also compensated for their efforts with free tuition, room and board.  Not to mention free books and academic support.  Even at a public university this runs into the thousands of dollars a year.  At a place like Duke it's worth, what?, $30k, $40k?  I don't see any way players are going to get a salary bigger than that.  If you want to make this a professional arrangement then the players should realize they will be receiving minor league salaries.

Athletes also get free training (practice, coaching) and free exposure (games) that dramatically boost their chances of getting a pro contract.

It appears the lawyers are going after the past revenues.  Good luck with that.  I still don't know what their end game is.  Collective bargaining for college players?  If so, who represents the swim team?  Or do they not count since they are a non-revenue sport?

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/19/2013 4:39 PM

RE: Ed O'Bannon vs NCAA (NCAA filings 3/15) 



RedLight wrote:
OK, I went and looked and here is a very brief synopsis from SI:

"Plaintiffs in the O’Bannon suit sued the NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Company and EA Sports over the commercialized use of athletes’ image, name and likeness."


This is just in the preliminary stages and has a long way to go to get to a trial, if it ever does.  I still think the players are going to get hung up over their voluntarily agreeing to waive any claim to these revenues. No one forces them to play NCAA ball.  Just as no forces anyone to play in the NBA.  If they don't like the rules they can try their luck somewhere else. 

Athletes are also compensated for their efforts with free tuition, room and board.  Not to mention free books and academic support.  Even at a public university this runs into the thousands of dollars a year.  At a place like Duke it's worth, what?, $30k, $40k?  I don't see any way players are going to get a salary bigger than that.  If you want to make this a professional arrangement then the players should realize they will be receiving minor league salaries.

Athletes also get free training (practice, coaching) and free exposure (games) that dramatically boost their chances of getting a pro contract.

It appears the lawyers are going after the past revenues.  Good luck with that.  I still don't know what their end game is.  Collective bargaining for college players?  If so, who represents the swim team?  Or do they not count since they are a non-revenue sport?
What if the athlete renounced their scholarship and they "walked-on", I believe they should be able to enter into contracts to profit off of their likeness, etc.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 13  Next >