Don't look now but the NCAA world could be turned upside down.

[Crusty]

A federal court judge on Friday denied an NCAA motion to dismiss a major challenge to the economic model of big-time college sports in a ruling strongly siding with players asking the court to allow them to be compensated for their images and likenesses in television and other media products.
*********************************************************
Next up for Judge Claudia Wilken is issuing an opinion on whether to certify the players' claim as a class action, which would bring thousands of current and former players into the case and grow the potential damages into the billions, should the NCAA eventually lose at trial.
*********************************************************
"It's basically the judge saying the king has no clothes," he said. "There is no Supreme Court protection for the NCAA's position that players cannot be compensated. She's saying we have to stop pretending that it's a Supreme Court mandate."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9879455/judge-denies-motion-dismiss-ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit

 

[orange79]

Another step towards the super division of 1-A

 

[SU2NASA]

Another step towards the super division of 1-A

Would it be the big 5 conferences and the AACK! and Mountain West on the outside looking in?

 

[upperdeck]

Im a bit confused.. the colleges created the NCAA to run their stuff.. they created the rules as far as fair play and compensation, are they forcing kids to go to school to get a free education for no pay? are people not allowed to create rules they want to run an organization by?

the Ivies allow no scholarships does that get over turned in this too?

 

[FAL]

Junior NFL

 

[Crusty]

Actually the NCAA was formed to protect college athletes under pressure from Teddy Roosevelt.

"The NCAA was founded in 1906 to protect young people from the dangerous and exploitive athletics practices of the time.

The rugged nature of early-day football, typified by mass formations and gang tackling, resulted in numerous injuries and deaths and prompted many college and universities to discontinue the sport. In many places, college football was run by student groups that often hired players and allowed them to compete as non-students. Common sentiment among the public was that college football should be reformed or abolished.

In the Arena:
The NCAA's First Century
A book by former University of Nevada President Joseph N. Crowley chronicles the development of the modern-day NCAA, with special attention on the history of the last 25 years of the NCAA's first century.

President Theodore Roosevelt summoned college athletics leaders to two White House conferences to encourage reforms. In early December 1905, Chancellor Henry M. MacCracken of New York University convened a meeting of 13 colleges and universities to initiate changes in football playing rules. At a subsequent meeting Dec. 28 in New York City, 62 higher-education institutions became charter members of the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States (IAAUS).

The IAAUS officially was constituted March 31, 1906, and took its present name, the NCAA, in 1910. For several years, the NCAA was a discussion group and rules-making body, but in 1921 the first NCAA national championship was conducted: the National Collegiate Track and Field Championships. Gradually, more rules committees were formed and more championships were created, including a basketball championship in 1939.

A series of crises brought the NCAA to a crossroads after World War II. The “Sanity Code” − adopted to establish guidelines for recruiting and financial aid − failed to curb abuses. Postseason football games were multiplying with little control, and member schools were increasingly concerned about how the new medium of television would affect football attendance."

 

[rosconey]

total bs-
they get paid with a education - nuff said

 

[Moontan]

I'm confused. The NCAA receives no money from FBS football. TV contracts are handled by the individual conferences. The BCS handles the major bowl games.

 

[orange79]

Would it be the big 5 conferences and the AACK! and Mountain West on the outside looking in?

I could see it going one of two ways.

1. P5 with perhaps one more (smaller) round of expansion.
2. P5 + ACK + MtnWest + a few stragglers (no Sun Belt, etc.). This one is less probable, but the possibility is > 0 (you know how CT loves their lawsuits).

 

[Timonen]

total bs-
they get paid with a education - nuff said

Someone with a music scholarship gets a free education, too, but they can be sponsored and go on tour for pay with their band.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Im a bit confused.. the colleges created the NCAA to run their stuff.. they created the rules as far as fair play and compensation, are they forcing kids to go to school to get a free education for no pay? are people not allowed to create rules they want to run an organization by?

the Ivies allow no scholarships does that get over turned in this too?

That's not the problem. Problem is iusing the kids likeness to sell uniforms, video games, etcetera.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Full_Rebar]

Every college student other than athletes can work, start a business, make money from their talents, etc. without jeopardizing their scholarship.

People saying this kills non-revenue sports need to relax as Title IX isn't going anywhere. This might impact the amount of money paid to administrators who don't actually do a lot anyway.

 

[Crusty]

Paying College Athletes

I had always believed that the trade of a college scholarship in exchange for athletic participation was a fair one. Students got a very expensive education that set them up to succeed in life and the school gets to make a lot of money and promote the institution.

That was then this is now.

1. Academic scholarships students have no restrictions. why should athletes be any different?
2. Scholarships are only granted for a year at a time. It is a one way deal in favor of the school – if they change their mind they can throw kids out with the garbage.
3. The money today is obscene. Schools are making huge sums and have done nothing to improve the lot of their athletes.
4. Athletes aren't slaves. They did not sell their souls to the school nor did they sell their images or likenesses. The deal was to play a game not to sell rights that every American feels belongs to individuals.
5. Many players in sports such as basketball enter school with absolutely no intention of staying for four years. The entire nature of the trade has changed.
6. In the big sports, the vast majority of student athletes are minorities. Many have no resources whatsoever and they are thrown in an environment where the average student has far more and some a great deal more. They can’t afford pizza’s and some students are driving Mercedes. The point is that these kids need some spending money just to survive in a foreign environment.

Paying a yearly stipend is, I believe, essential to maintain fairness. One of the arguments for not paying a stipend is, of course, Title IX, which would require such payments to all student athletes and that it would be cost prohibitive. However, such payments would be optional so the schools that can afford to do it would and the schools that can’t wouldn’t and would eventually fall into lessor conferences. That is happening anyway.

Here is the more controversial approach – allowing players to sell their likenesses, autographs etc. This approach has the benefit of mitigating or eliminating the effect of Title IX. The marketplace would decide which players make money. The payments above a certain amount could be held in trust until the players eligibility expired. (Perhaps, more might stay in school.)

But, here’s the deal – the best players would probably make more money in the larger wealthier states and not in the traditional football power states such as Alabama, Louisiana etc. This might really shake things up.

Personally, I think the NCAA will lose the O’Bannon case in lower court. How this Supreme Court would view this case is hard to say. Does this argue for a settlement and, if so, what would it be?

 

[llandz]

Paying College Athletes

I had always believed that the trade of a college scholarship in exchange for athletic participation was a fair one. Students got a very expensive education that set them up to succeed in life and the school gets to make a lot of money and promote the institution.

That was then this is now.

1. Academic scholarships students have no restrictions. why should athletes be any different?
2. Scholarships are only granted for a year at a time. It is a one way deal in favor of the school – if they change their mind they can throw kids out with the garbage.
3. The money today is obscene. Schools are making huge sums and have done nothing to improve the lot of their athletes.
4. Athletes aren't slaves. They did not sell their souls to the school nor did they sell their images or likenesses. The deal was to play a game not to sell rights that every American feels belongs to individuals.
5. Many players in sports such as basketball enter school with absolutely no intention of staying for four years. The entire nature of the trade has changed.
6. In the big sports, the vast majority of student athletes are minorities. Many have no resources whatsoever and they are thrown in an environment where the average student has far more and some a great deal more. They can’t afford pizza’s and some students are driving Mercedes. The point is that these kids need some spending money just to survive in a foreign environment.

Paying a yearly stipend is, I believe, essential to maintain fairness. One of the arguments for not paying a stipend is, of course, Title IX, which would require such payments to all student athletes and that it would be cost prohibitive. However, such payments would be optional so the schools that can afford to do it would and the schools that can’t wouldn’t and would eventually fall into lessor conferences. That is happening anyway.

Here is the more controversial approach – allowing players to sell their likenesses, autographs etc. This approach has the benefit of mitigating or eliminating the effect of Title IX. The marketplace would decide which players make money. The payments above a certain amount could be held in trust until the players eligibility expired. (Perhaps, more might stay in school.)

But, here’s the deal – the best players would probably make more money in the larger wealthier states and not in the traditional football power states such as Alabama, Louisiana etc. This might really shake things up.

Personally, I think the NCAA will lose the O’Bannon case in lower court. How this Supreme Court would view this case is hard to say. Does this argue for a settlement and, if so, what would it be?

Very well stated. Agree with every point you made. You should be representing the college athlete players union, which will not be known as the NCAA!!!!

 

[upperdeck]

if my company uses my likeness to promote it do i get paid? there are tons of people having their pictures used to promote things that dont get any money.

 

[upperdeck]

my simple solution, pay the kids for playing, pay them for performance.. dont give out any more scholies make them pay for school.. hmm.. who comes out ahead in that deal.

 

[upperdeck]

there are tons of kids on scholie doing research who cant get paid for doing that type of work outside the bounds of the school.

 

[upperdeck]

there are tons of kids on scholie doing research who cant get paid for doing that type of work outside the bounds of the school.

 

[HtownOrange]

There are multiple issues here:

The NCAA's position of "authority" (don't laugh, the NCAA is only doing what the schools who are part of the NCAA want them to do)
The NCAA selling players' likenesses
Athletes pay for play


These are my predictions:

ON NCAA Authority, the court is likely to not harm this as it is a club and the club can set its own rules.
On selling players' likenesses, the court is likely to find that the players should be compensated in some fashion, the court will recognize a free ride has much value, but so does a star athlete's name/likeness on a jersey.
On Athletes pay for play, the court will probably rule it is OK to do so but that the "club" (read NCAA) can set rules/guidelines.

The net result will be that the schools with money (read P5) start handing some $ over to the players, not much, though. Most likely, part of the signing with any school will include a flat fee for rights to their likenesses and an NCAA set limit on a stipend.

The above are just guesses. I have not spent time researching the transcripts, applicable statutes and the legal arguments.

 

[retro44]

so if state schools start paying,how long would it take players to sue for pension rights as the law says five years for vested rights

 

[rosconey]

Someone with a music scholarship gets a free education, too, but they can be sponsored and go on tour for pay with their band.

apples and oranges -
schools dont get paid millions for band kids -no bowl games-
if there was money and corruption it would be like football-

the likeness thing with named jerseys is wrong -but please keep pay out of college sports

 

[SWC75]

- Players who are in school to get a degree will be thankful for their scholarships. The kids who are just trying to get to the NFL or the NBA along the path laid out for them by adults and thus have to pretend they are college students might value them less than the school does.

- The Ohio State "scandal"- players trading trinkets they were given for their football achievements for tattoos suggest that the players are cash-poor.

- It's my understanding that academic scholarships include a cost of living stipend that is not in the athletic scholarships because of housing and meals the athletes get. But that's not cash. Where's the walking around money?

- Headlines alternate between the schools announcing new TV contracts and conference alignments to make millions more with stories of the NCAA cracking down on athlete's attempts to make extra money.They want to get rich and keep the kid's poor. What values are the players supposed to learn from this?

I don't see salaries as a solution. They could give the richer schools an advantage and stratify college football even more than it is. I'd just put a cost of living stipend into the scholarship package- the same for everyone at every school so there's no recruiting advantage. I'd also give players a cut when their images or names are used to sell products. And I don't see the problem with players charging for their autographs or doing car commercials saying how "It's huge". if they are worried about boosters paying $1000 for an autograph- well, the NCAA likes to police things. Police that. But allow it. Maybe the money a player makes through autographs or endorsements could be shared, in part with their teammates.

It won't be the end of the world if players can pay for their own tattoos.

 

[Crusty]

There are multiple issues here:

The NCAA's position of "authority" (don't laugh, the NCAA is only doing what the schools who are part of the NCAA want them to do)
The NCAA selling players' likenesses
Athletes pay for play


These are my predictions:

ON NCAA Authority, the court is likely to not harm this as it is a club and the club can set its own rules.
On selling players' likenesses, the court is likely to find that the players should be compensated in some fashion, the court will recognize a free ride has much value, but so does a star athlete's name/likeness on a jersey.
On Athletes pay for play, the court will probably rule it is OK to do so but that the "club" (read NCAA) can set rules/guidelines.

The net result will be that the schools with money (read P5) start handing some $ over to the players, not much, though. Most likely, part of the signing with any school will include a flat fee for rights to their likenesses and an NCAA set limit on a stipend.

The above are just guesses. I have not spent time researching the transcripts, applicable statutes and the legal arguments.

Interesting thoughts, HtownOrange.

"What, gambling at Rick's!"

Just like Claude Rains in Casablanca, we all ignore the obvious. Very much like track and field years ago, under-the-table money is everywhere is collegiate sports. Players get paid cash from boosters all the time. Players know it and many times the "wink and a nod" is employed in recruiting battles. So, for you purists out there the money battle was lost years ago.

What you suggest above is probably what would happen in a settlement, which I suppose is the most likely outcome.

However, I expect that you might agree if it goes to a verdict and then the Supreme Court we are in uncharted territory. If the NCAA loses control of the players it has pretty much lost control period.

Then we get all out war complete with strange bedfellows - would be interesting.

 

[Full_Rebar]

I think the NCAA is asleep at the wheel on this issue, but that the conference commissioners have a settlement plan in mind. Most experts think it's crazy for the NCAA to let this get to the Supreme Court because the damages could end up in the billions.

Wouldn't surprise me if the top leagues adopted the Olympic model that Bilas promotes because the money would just funnel direct from booster to athletes and the AD's, admins and coaches keep their bloated salaries. Let's face it, we have that in place now in some respects, especially in basketball where kids play for AAU teams sponsored by one of the shoe companies and go to a college with the same company. It also handles the non-revenue issue because you can be a lacrosse, field hockey, track athlete and get endorsement/sponsor money if you are at the top of your sport.

It's nice to think that a college education is a good enough incentive, but that's far from the reality in the sports with the potential of a pro career. What had been limited to hoops, football, hockey and baseball is spilling over to many other sports.

 

[HtownOrange]

Interesting thoughts, HtownOrange.

"What, gambling at Rick's!"

Just like Claude Rains in Casablanca, we all ignore the obvious. Very much like track and field years ago, under-the-table money is everywhere is collegiate sports. Players get paid cash from boosters all the time. Players know it and many times the "wink and a nod" is employed in recruiting battles. So, for you purists out there the money battle was lost years ago.

What you suggest above is probably what would happen in a settlement, which I suppose is the most likely outcome.

However, I expect that you might agree if it goes to a verdict and then the Supreme Court we are in uncharted territory. If the NCAA loses control of the players it has pretty much lost control period.

Then we get all out war complete with strange bedfellows - would be interesting.

Good analogy, Rick's Cafe Americain. The schools with boosters breaking the rules will probably continue to do so. The kids will get the NCAA established stipend plus the boosters' "incentives". In the long run, I don't see any real differences, the SEC will still pay more than everyone else, this only changes if the NCAA ever gets enough backbone to actually penalize schools for breaches of real violations and real academic restrictions are in place and enforced.

Anyway, these are just opinions for fun. I am too lazy to read all the filings in this case.

I do agree that the courts will be uncharted territory. However, I can see the NCAA (and its member schools) negotiating hard for a settlement to avoid an unfavorable decision.