game changer | Syracusefan.com

game changer

I do not see how you draw those conclusions from that limited decision. How you see this as a private/public issue is beyond me at the moment.
 
I do not see how you draw those conclusions from that limited decision. How you see this as a private/public issue is beyond me at the moment.

The sky hasn't been close enough to the ground lately.
 
let me put it this way, the ACC is paid about 20 million per school for broadcast rights for sports not just football because espn needs content other than football. all the schools athletes may be able to get a part of that revenue under this suit.

now imagine your Syracuse who gets this money and has to pay this money and you draw 40 thousand to a football game and your competing against Clemson who draws 75 thousand to football games. the league pays you the same for the espn contract, you have the same amount of atheletes on your football team that have a right to that revenue from the league payout but your take from the gate is half that of a bigger school. that is a huge advantage to bigger schools.

thats why the lawsuit based on getting money from live broadcasts and tv contracts is a much bigger deal than just plain stipends
 
http://espn.go.com/espn/conversatio...ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money

this would change everything about college sports and very likely ruin private colleges ability to be competive on top of title nine laws. this could also have serious implications for alignment as well and future tv agreements
Seems this would be a death blow for the NCAA. The NCAA as an organization, and especially in its constitution and by-laws, stresses that it is a governing body for amateur collegiate athletics. This would be raw cash payment for athletic performance, regardless of whether the money is "laundered" through the NCAA. Hence, the athletes are no longer amateur. I honestly do not see how the NCAA as currently constituted could survive this.
 
I see the article has changed somewhat since they first put it up, and after further reading it the actual litigation refers to basketball and football players, the premise of live tv money is the same however. so lets say the orange bowl pays tv rights of 55 million and a jury awards the players anywhere between 30-50 percent of the rights to the actual live game broadcast which would be in line with precedents paid to their pro counterparts, that is an enormous payout compared to the 2000 a year or so stipend the NCAA was thinking of allowing teams to pay some of its athletes. It would also be a huge hit to the university athletic funds.

the tv rights contracts paid to the conferences then distributed to its members are for the entire athletic department and dont just go to football and basketball so its hard to see how that would be distributed

now think of enormous tv rights contracts per conference and bowl tv money and NCAA basketball payouts to conferences and what conferences stand to make the most money. if your a player and you need or want money you go where you get paid more just like a coach.
 
I see the article has changed somewhat since they first put it up, and after further reading it the actual litigation refers to basketball and football players, the premise of live tv money is the same however. so lets say the orange bowl pays tv rights of 55 million and a jury awards the players anywhere between 30-50 percent of the rights to the actual live game broadcast which would be in line with precedents paid to their pro counterparts, that is an enormous payout compared to the 2000 a year or so stipend the NCAA was thinking of allowing teams to pay some of its athletes. It would also be a huge hit to the university athletic funds.

the tv rights contracts paid to the conferences then distributed to its members are for the entire athletic department and dont just go to football and basketball so its hard to see how that would be distributed

now think of enormous tv rights contracts per conference and bowl tv money and NCAA basketball payouts to conferences and what conferences stand to make the most money. if your a player and you need or want money you go where you get paid more just like a coach.
wouldn't this create an employee/employer relationship and change everything about college sports in general?
 
wouldn't this create an employee/employer relationship and change everything about college sports in general?
It definitely could open Pandora's box.

I'm all for "Cost of Attendance" level scholarships. If student athletes are going to be students they need to be able live like other students. This includes the ability to go to an occasional movie, grab a slice at the Varsity, go out on a date, etc.. All of those typical student activities cost money. Some students receive those funds from their parents, others have jobs. Student athletes on scholarship are not allowed to have outside jobs. For those student athletes who come from less affluent backgrounds there is no money for those activities. Providing a stipend to student athletes is one way to help address this need.

Outright "pay for play" could lead to some interesting changes. Do all student athletes get paid or only those on certain teams? Do all of those teams' players get paid or only those that get on the fields or start? Does the QB make more than the kicker?

Do players that are paid have to pay for their tuition?

Will players have the choice of tuition or pay?

Will those that choose to be paid even have to go to classes?

If the lawsuit is successful I have that it only leads to Cost of Attendance stipends for all student athletes (if a school chooses to offer them). I may even be able to go along with an increase in the stipend (say up to double) for the revenue sports, if the school so chooses. In such a model it would be interesting to see if Hopkins would provide $ to its lax players just to be able to compete with the rest of D-1 schools (from the Big Five conferences) which would be paying their players.
 
let me put it this way, the ACC is paid about 20 million per school for broadcast rights for sports not just football because espn needs content other than football. all the schools athletes may be able to get a part of that revenue under this suit.

now imagine your Syracuse who gets this money and has to pay this money and you draw 40 thousand to a football game and your competing against Clemson who draws 75 thousand to football games. the league pays you the same for the espn contract, you have the same amount of atheletes on your football team that have a right to that revenue from the league payout but your take from the gate is half that of a bigger school. that is a huge advantage to bigger schools.

thats why the lawsuit based on getting money from live broadcasts and tv contracts is a much bigger deal than just plain stipends

First of all, there is the question of how much the players would be entitled to ASSUMING they prevail. So, we have no idea what the impact might really be yet. Secondly, players get scholarships worth a quarter of a million dollars in today's money. This will undoubtedly be counted as compensation and reduce the amount that could be awarded. The minute you get into valuation, all players will not be considered equal and the vast majority of players will perhaps, have little claim above scholarship level. There are many elements in evaluation that could mitigate the effects of any possible award.

Lastly, if the players did win what makes you think they won't go back and attack stadium attendance?

I have heard the argument made that players should own the right to their personal images, signatures etc, which is made to deal with the title nine issues. Star players would become commodities and if that happens TV money will be everything. This will take many twists and turns before it is over and the players may lose the suit. Far too early to make any forecasts.
 
wouldn't this create an employee/employer relationship and change everything about college sports in general?
Could see where it could lead to that. If it were to evolve that far, you could certainly see where the schools with the most money would simply get the best players by way of superior financial packages.
 
I wonder how this money would be distributed. Do walk-ons that have never seen the field get the same amout of money as the starting quarterback?

How are these athletes any different from graduate assistants that work on projects resulting in huge grants for the universities? They get free tuition and a stipend.

What about interns that work for free for multi-million/billion dollar companies? Should this group organize it's own class action suit?
 
The article is about the NCAA losing a motion barring the plaintifs the opportunity to make a claim. The key statement is:

"Although our motion to strike was denied, the judge has signaled skepticism on plaintiff's class-certification motion and recognized the plaintiffs' radical change in their theory of the case," Remy said. "This is a step in the right direction toward allowing the NCAA to further demonstrate why this case is wrong on the law and that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this case satisfies the criteria for class litigation."

The plaintiffs are allowed to amend their complaint and seek the additional revenue sources. However, if the judge signaled she is skeptical, then the plaintiffs have a long way to go before proving their case.

As mentioned above, these players are receiving full ride scholarships, books, room, board, access to specialty equipment and training, everything they need for four or five years of education. In exchange, they represent the school in sports.

A ruling for the athletes would have to inlcude the above as mitigating factors and I assure, even the state schools will show every penny spent on these kids to prove income. Don't forget, tutoring, special diets and diet pans, personal trainers, nicer rooms, private facilities, etc.

In short, the athletes have an uphill battle.
 
Even if they win they lose, Title 9 will cause the Federal government to step in, and there will be no college athletics at all. You can't pay just the revenue producing athletes, even if you want to because of title 9, the federal government would be hounded by rights groups to pay everyone.
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
0
Views
509
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
6
Views
792
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
6
Views
724
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
5
Views
2K
    • Like
  • Locked
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
7
Views
4K

Forum statistics

Threads
169,448
Messages
4,831,964
Members
5,977
Latest member
newmom4503

Online statistics

Members online
249
Guests online
1,397
Total visitors
1,646


...
Top Bottom