So if the O'Bannon case goes through then college sports will need to go to Congress to save itself. They will likely need some form of anti-trust legislation to prevent losing hundreds of millions in revenue and completely altering the system.

The problem: states like Nevada, Idaho, Hawaii, New Mexico, Conn all have key Senators who would be unwilling to provide relief for the P5 without some consideration being made for their schools. Currently the P5 don't control enough states to cut off debate especially with huge gaps in the West.

What's the deal that gets cut to prevent college sports from imploding?

(06-22-2013 11:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  What's the deal that gets cut to prevent college sports from imploding?

It's disgraceful that schools circled their wagons and didn't tackle the issue more individually. Some of these schools should have seen this coming for years...after these guys made stopped walking the halls, there was no reason they couldn't pay them with generous "appearance fees" as a measure of goodwill or as a way to approach the topic of future image or likeness usage. Nope.

Schools should be getting out in front of this. They still should, and still have time to do so. Most won't, though. To them, well, nice knowing you. Can't wait for what this will lead to politically if the fed or states have to bail them out in any way. If higher education wasn't already hurting, it's days are numbered now for some schools.

the non-football schools should be okay, though.

Even if the players win, there will be no earth-shattering changes to what the NCAA does. People are tossing around figures unrelated to reality. No settlement is going to cost a school like Alabama $40 million. If the players win, some money, a very manageable amount, probably on the order of $25 million a year as the grand total for all of the NCAA membership, will be set aside to fund programs of general benefit to all student-athletes. It won't put a dent in the athletic budgets of schools or the NCAA and players will certainly not get rich.

It could also turn out like the USFL lawsuit did. The players win, and get a $1 settlement. They signed a contract with their schools under NCAA rules when they signed their LOI, which gave the school and NCAA the right to do whatever...

(06-22-2013 01:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could also turn out like the USFL lawsuit did. The players win, and get a $1 settlement. They signed a contract with their schools under NCAA rules when they signed their LOI, which gave the school and NCAA the right to do whatever...

Exactly. And i think the recent settlement of the ex-NFL players suit against the NFL for pretty much the same thing (unpaid use of image) is very instructive about the dollars likely to be involved. Instead of billions or hundreds of millions, the settlement calls for a total of $42 million to be dispersed. And that's the freaking NFL we're talking about here, a far richer entity than the NCAA.

And of that NFL amount, the average ex-player will probably get less than $1,000 in overall direct benefits, while the law firm that represented them stands to pocket about $9 million.

(06-22-2013 01:21 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  the non-football schools should be okay, though.

Hardly. You realize the center of the lawsuit surrounds a BASKETBALL video game, right?

Here's my $0.02 on the O'Bannon case.

I have no problem with paying players, but I also don't believe the current system is unjust or unfair to the athletes. I also don't think the result if O'Bannon wins is the end of college sports or even a semi-pro system where players get paid millions - there isn't enough dough in the system for that. I think it's far more likely that CLC and EA simply lose in the end and pay the plaintiffs some money. The result has already changed the way EA develops the games and how CLC markets products. The fuzzy accounting that schools use will keep some of the revenue out of the athletic department anyway.

Plus, there's only a dozen or so schools anyway that don't take some sort of subsidy from the university (either from general funds or student fees) and I really don't think it's fair that any scholarship athlete should get any additional money while the AA is taking money from other students to support itself.

Title IX, the fuzzy accounting, and the fact that the schools are educational institutions all play a part in mitigating whatever possible effects that could come from the case.

CommuterBob:
"I have no problem with paying players, but I also don't believe the current system is unjust or unfair to the athletes"

I agree with your point that really won't effect college sports, but I know of an individual that had a scholarship taken away because of a debilitating injury. Fair is letting him complete his scholarship, but that did not happen. Fair does not have anything to do with it.

Not all schools yank scholarships for injuries or medical conditions. In 2010 WVU recruited Darrious Curry, who was diagnosed with Marfan's syndrome during his entrance physical, a genetic defect that predisposes a person to heart disease, which would preclude him from playing for WVU. WVU was willing to honor his scholarship, even though he would not be able to play for the Mountaineers. But he didn't accept the scholarship, and chose to leave WVU in order to continue his basketball career. He instead conferred with another cardiologist in Texas, who said he could continue to play without further risk of damage to his heart, and enrolled at Casper (WY) College the following year...

I believe he's currently at Odessa (TX) College...

(06-22-2013 01:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 01:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could also turn out like the USFL lawsuit did. The players win, and get a $1 settlement. They signed a contract with their schools under NCAA rules when they signed their LOI, which gave the school and NCAA the right to do whatever...

Exactly. And i think the recent settlement of the ex-NFL players suit against the NFL for pretty much the same thing (unpaid use of image) is very instructive about the dollars likely to be involved. Instead of billions or hundreds of millions, the settlement calls for a total of $42 million to be dispersed. And that's the freaking NFL we're talking about here, a far richer entity than the NCAA.

And of that NFL amount, the average ex-player will probably get less than $1,000 in overall direct benefits, while the law firm that represented them stands to pocket about $9 million.

Yep, my firm has been involved in some class actions.

We sued Entergy in one class action about ten years ago for overcharging ratepayers and improperly getting the Louisiana PSC to rubber stamp their rate increases for years.

The settlement ended up being something like a $78 refund for each ratepayer, and nine million in attorneys fees.

You gotta love America.

(06-22-2013 06:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 01:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 01:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could also turn out like the USFL lawsuit did. The players win, and get a $1 settlement. They signed a contract with their schools under NCAA rules when they signed their LOI, which gave the school and NCAA the right to do whatever...

Exactly. And i think the recent settlement of the ex-NFL players suit against the NFL for pretty much the same thing (unpaid use of image) is very instructive about the dollars likely to be involved. Instead of billions or hundreds of millions, the settlement calls for a total of $42 million to be dispersed. And that's the freaking NFL we're talking about here, a far richer entity than the NCAA.

And of that NFL amount, the average ex-player will probably get less than $1,000 in overall direct benefits, while the law firm that represented them stands to pocket about $9 million.

Yep, my firm has been involved in some class actions.

We sued Entergy in one class action about ten years ago for overcharging ratepayers and improperly getting the Louisiana PSC to rubber stamp their rate increases for years.

The settlement ended up being something like a $78 refund for each ratepayer, and nine million in attorneys fees.

You gotta love America.

I remember that! As an Entergy customer then I appreciated getting that refund.

(06-22-2013 04:22 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  CommuterBob:
"I have no problem with paying players, but I also don't believe the current system is unjust or unfair to the athletes"

I agree with your point that really won't effect college sports, but I know of an individual that had a scholarship taken away because of a debilitating injury. Fair is letting him complete his scholarship, but that did not happen. Fair does not have anything to do with it.

I know that sucks, but there are also stories where players are allowed to keep theirs after debilitating injury, but almost all of those are for football or basketball. But I look at it another way: athletics still gets people enrolled who otherwise could not get into college. So that student who is no longer on athletic scholarship is still enrolled and has a chance to get a good education, even if they have their scholarship pulled.

Also, a student on academic scholarship is expected to maintain a certain GPA and if he/she falls below that, they lose that scholarship - regardless of the academic circumstances, too. It's not a perfect system, but it gives far more chances for student athletes to succeed than it puts roadblocks in their way.

(06-23-2013 12:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Also, a student on academic scholarship is expected to maintain a certain GPA and if he/she falls below that, they lose that scholarship - regardless of the academic circumstances, too. It's not a perfect system, but it gives far more chances for student athletes to succeed than it puts roadblocks in their way.

Athletic scholarships are harder to maintain than academic ones. There are no metrics for maintaining an athletic scholarship, other than the academic performance aspect. And that's what's so wrong about it. Yeah, it gives "a chance," but you can still do a great job in the classroom and in the sport and still be cut for no other reason.

Could you imagine what it would be like if academic scholarships were as arbitrary as athletic ones? "Hey, I know you're a 4.0 and on a Rhodes track, but our new president wants a different feel for the school. Best wishes on your future endeavors, kid."

(06-23-2013 12:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 04:22 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  CommuterBob:
"I have no problem with paying players, but I also don't believe the current system is unjust or unfair to the athletes"

I agree with your point that really won't effect college sports, but I know of an individual that had a scholarship taken away because of a debilitating injury. Fair is letting him complete his scholarship, but that did not happen. Fair does not have anything to do with it.

I know that sucks, but there are also stories where players are allowed to keep theirs after debilitating injury, but almost all of those are for football or basketball. But I look at it another way: athletics still gets people enrolled who otherwise could not get into college. So that student who is no longer on athletic scholarship is still enrolled and has a chance to get a good education, even if they have their scholarship pulled.

How many lower-income kids can stay enrolled without that athletic scholarship?

The worst thing about "athletic scholarships" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is that instead of being a 4-year commitment, they are typically only for just a one year commitment with a rollover option - for the school, not the athlete, and has been said, there is no objective criterion like a GPA that the student can meet to ensure a renewal of the scholarship, it's strictly at the subjective whim of the coach.

The best athletic scholarship reform would be that the school must make a full, 4-year commitment to the kid, one that could only be revoked for academic reasons (failure to attend class, meet a certain GPA, etc.), not athletic reasons.

(06-23-2013 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 12:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 04:22 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  CommuterBob:
"I have no problem with paying players, but I also don't believe the current system is unjust or unfair to the athletes"

I agree with your point that really won't effect college sports, but I know of an individual that had a scholarship taken away because of a debilitating injury. Fair is letting him complete his scholarship, but that did not happen. Fair does not have anything to do with it.

I know that sucks, but there are also stories where players are allowed to keep theirs after debilitating injury, but almost all of those are for football or basketball. But I look at it another way: athletics still gets people enrolled who otherwise could not get into college. So that student who is no longer on athletic scholarship is still enrolled and has a chance to get a good education, even if they have their scholarship pulled.

How many lower-income kids can stay enrolled without that athletic scholarship?

The worst thing about "athletic scholarships" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is that instead of being a 4-year commitment, they are typically only for just a one year commitment with a rollover option - for the school, not the athlete, and has been said, there is no objective criterion like a GPA that the student can meet to ensure a renewal of the scholarship, it's strictly at the subjective whim of the coach.

The best athletic scholarship reform would be that the school must make a full, 4-year commitment to the kid, one that could only be revoked for academic reasons (failure to attend class, meet a certain GPA, etc.), not athletic reasons.

I know that ND treats athletic scholarships as four year commitments, not one year renewable scholarships.

I think that Bit mentioned some WVU players who retained their athletic scholarships after injury.

I would think that other schools likewise do not revoke athletic scholarships.

(06-23-2013 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 12:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 04:22 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  CommuterBob:
"I have no problem with paying players, but I also don't believe the current system is unjust or unfair to the athletes"

I agree with your point that really won't effect college sports, but I know of an individual that had a scholarship taken away because of a debilitating injury. Fair is letting him complete his scholarship, but that did not happen. Fair does not have anything to do with it.

I know that sucks, but there are also stories where players are allowed to keep theirs after debilitating injury, but almost all of those are for football or basketball. But I look at it another way: athletics still gets people enrolled who otherwise could not get into college. So that student who is no longer on athletic scholarship is still enrolled and has a chance to get a good education, even if they have their scholarship pulled.

How many lower-income kids can stay enrolled without that athletic scholarship?

The worst thing about "athletic scholarships" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is that instead of being a 4-year commitment, they are typically only for just a one year commitment with a rollover option - for the school, not the athlete, and has been said, there is no objective criterion like a GPA that the student can meet to ensure a renewal of the scholarship, it's strictly at the subjective whim of the coach.

The best athletic scholarship reform would be that the school must make a full, 4-year commitment to the kid, one that could only be revoked for academic reasons (failure to attend class, meet a certain GPA, etc.), not athletic reasons.

Four year scholarships have already been approved, but as of yet only a handful of programs are using them.

http://college-football.si.com/2013/04/1...olarships/

Quote:Only six schools in the six major conferences signed at least 24 multiyear scholarships across all sports over the past year: Florida (60), Ohio State (47), NC State (40), Michigan State (30), Arizona State (27) and Auburn (27). Programs tend to prefer single-year scholarships with the option to renew annually.

However, there are big drawbacks to 4-year scholarships, as 40% of all athletes are not members of their original institution by the end of their sophomore year. But multiyear scholarships are basically in their infancy. Let's see how it grows and how much of a recruiting advantage is seen from those schools that offer them.

I believe if a player has a career ending injury, his scholarship still is honored but it doesn't count against the 85 limit.

As for the O'Bannon lawsuit, even if the plaintiffs do win, it will be a settlement along the lines of the USFL decision. Even though people on this board (myself included) tend to view things through a football lens, I can't see this Supreme Court making a decision that would be in the adverse interests of every university athletic department in the country.

(06-23-2013 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 12:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 04:22 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  CommuterBob:
"I have no problem with paying players, but I also don't believe the current system is unjust or unfair to the athletes"

I agree with your point that really won't effect college sports, but I know of an individual that had a scholarship taken away because of a debilitating injury. Fair is letting him complete his scholarship, but that did not happen. Fair does not have anything to do with it.

I know that sucks, but there are also stories where players are allowed to keep theirs after debilitating injury, but almost all of those are for football or basketball. But I look at it another way: athletics still gets people enrolled who otherwise could not get into college. So that student who is no longer on athletic scholarship is still enrolled and has a chance to get a good education, even if they have their scholarship pulled.

How many lower-income kids can stay enrolled without that athletic scholarship?

The worst thing about "athletic scholarships" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is that instead of being a 4-year commitment, they are typically only for just a one year commitment with a rollover option - for the school, not the athlete, and has been said, there is no objective criterion like a GPA that the student can meet to ensure a renewal of the scholarship, it's strictly at the subjective whim of the coach.

The best athletic scholarship reform would be that the school must make a full, 4-year commitment to the kid, one that could only be revoked for academic reasons (failure to attend class, meet a certain GPA, etc.), not athletic reasons.

I would be fine if they evened it out one way or the other. Make scholarships 4 years or let kids move with no penalty. Now it is tilted heavily towards the schools.

Give all student athletes Books & Tuition and Room & Board and then without doing anything differently than you would for other students make all practice time subject to work-study payments. Once that is done establish a per use payout amount for images used by the school, conference, or it's media affiliates or networks. End of story.