Interesting Class Action Law Suit

[Wbbfan1]

Will They Win - Link

 

[alexrgct]

It is interesting, and honestly I hope the athletes don't win. It will destroy college sports. There is a ton of top-line revenue for the schools, but the overwhelming majority of athletic departments are in the red already.

No one is holding a gun to these kids' heads and making them get a free education in exchange for playing a game.

 

[Olde Coach]

Will They Win - Link

Basically, the only net revenue sports are football and basketball. And those sports pay for (support) all the other NCAA sports.

However they structure payments to the athletes, it looks like the players who are bringing in the most revenue to their college will be paid a lot more for football at Texas than at UConn. And UConn Women Basketball players will be paid a lot more than Texas WBB players. The high revenue teams will have a huge recruiting advantage that will have a host of "unintended consequences."
For instance, you can bet your last dollar that Diamond Deshields will enroll at UConn rather than UNC.

The devil will be in the details if this lawsuit succeeds.

Sadly, the jury who decides this lawsuit will have precious little understanding of the complexities that will be created.

 

[jdubct]

Basically, the only net revenue sports are football and basketball. And those sports pay for (support) all the other NCAA sports.

However they structure payments to the athletes, it looks like the players who are bringing in the most revenue to their college will be paid a lot more for football at Texas than at UConn. And UConn Women Basketball players will be paid a lot more than Texas WBB players. The high revenue teams will have a huge recruiting advantage that will have a host of "unintended consequences."
For instance, Diamond Deshields will enroll at UConn rather than UNC.

The devil will be in the details if this lawsuit succeeds.

Sadly, the jury who decides this lawsuit will have precious little understanding of the complexities that will be created.

Maybe the NCAA would be allowed to establish a set salary for all players across the country. Otherwise, players, as you indicate, may choose to go to the highest paying schools like Texas.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I would like to see athletes compensated better than currently. But the object of this lawsuit would, indeed, end college sports. Sports are already barely financially viable for MOST schools - look at programs being cut, etc. - as Alex says the majority of schools, if they lost 50% of TV revenue, would find it impossible to put a product out.

 

[OneTrickPony]

Some of the lawyers need to weigh in...but it would seem the schools could prevent this by requiring waivers before they sign the athletes.

 

[vtcwbuff]

A really complex issue and I don't see an easy answer. I believe this could have been avoided had the NCAA decided to compensate athletes from the funds they help generate.

The reality is that many, if not most, college athletes competing in the big money sports are kids with very limited finances. They bring in millions for their schools yet they don't have enough money for a Big Mac and fries. Coaches and ADs rake in the big bucks but the guy scoring the TDs gets squat.

 

[alexrgct]

A really complex issue and I don't see an easy answer. I believe this could have been avoided had the NCAA decided to compensate athletes from the funds they help generate.

The reality is that many, if not most, college athletes competing in the big money sports are kids with very limited finances. They bring in millions for their schools yet they don't have enough money for a Big Mac and fries. Coaches and ADs rake in the big bucks but the guy scoring the TDs gets squat.

Very few of the 85 kids on a CFB scholarship are bringing in the millions. The heisman candidate? Maybe. But what about the third string RB who never lived up to his potential and is costing the school a scholarship? The school and the coach are the brand. Without the brand, the kid doesn't generate the millions. And at such time as he is a big enough brand by himself to generate the big bucks, he has the option of going pro and doing so. To me, that's what America is about. You can go from broke to rich (and broke again), but there is real struggle and sacrifice in the interim. So you may have to go four years with no car, living in a dorm, eating cafeteria food, and wearing your school's athletic gear and that's it. But at the culmination, you'll have training and a degree, something many middle class folks have to go into debt to make happen.

Plus these kids get all kinds of money under the table anyway, the NCAA turns a blind eye.

 

[Phil]

Will They Win - Link

As an aside, interesting that Tate George is mentioned. I watched the video of the shot a couple hours ago, interestingly, while considering a purchase of NCAA photos.

 

[Phil]

I would like to see athletes compensated better than currently. But the object of this lawsuit would, indeed, end college sports. Sports are already barely financially viable for MOST schools - look at programs being cut, etc. - as Alex says the majority of schools, if they lost 50% of TV revenue, would find it impossible to put a product out.

Let's not over-react. They are asking for 50%. Doesn't mean they will get 50%.

 

[pap49cba]

Let's not over-react. They are asking for 50%. Doesn't mean they will get 50%.

Not after the lawyers take their cut.

 

[UConn990411]

I would have to read the specifics of the NCAA paperwork athletes have to fill out, but on the surface it appears they have a pretty good appropriation case.

The NCAA pretends these guys are amateurs, yet simultaneously their employees make 6-7 figures off the players' free labor on things like TV deals and revenue. Even worse, they're pimping out their jerseys and using their faces (though not their names) in video games.

That, right there, is the definition of exploitation.

 

[alexrgct]

I would have to read the specifics of the NCAA paperwork athletes have to fill out, but on the surface it appears they have a pretty good appropriation case.

The NCAA pretends these guys are amateurs, yet simultaneously their employees make 6-7 figures off the players' free labor on things like TV deals and revenue. Even worse, they're pimping out their jerseys and using their faces (though not their names) in video games.

That, right there, is the definition of exploitation.

Free labor? Tuition, room, board, books, and tutoring, ain't free. It's a benefit worth between 100 and 200K. You then have a degree that allows you to earn more money than you would otherwise, and the fact that you played ball opens doors professionally that a 22 year old would not otherwise have.

As I see it, "making" millions is a dubious term. Is UConn's AD in the black? Are most D1 ADs? They generate millions, but bigtime college sports is not an immensely profitable venture for most schools.

Of the profitable schools/players, let's use Texas as an example, specifically Vince Young and Fozzy Whittaker. Vince Young was a superstar in college, should have won the Heisman, led Texas to a national championship, etc. Fozzy was a four-star RB from the recruiting class of 2007. He redshirted as a frosh and then spent four injury prone years for the Horns. He was a great guy and a good leader, but did not do much to boost Texas's profile or generate millions. Here's the thing: he got his BBA in three years, and then got his Master's, all on Texas's dime.

Now, in Vince's case, what UT spent on his education was nowhere near the value he generated in return. In Fozzy's case, he received a benefit far greater than his value to Texas Football. Fozzy is going to be immensely successful in life. Vince, meanwhile, signed a huge rookie contract and has made millions in the NFL despite not being especially successful as a pro, and has also been able to parlay his success at Texas into starting businesses like a steakhouse in Austin.

So I have to ask: who exactly is the victim here?

 

[Wonkster]

... The devil will be in the details if this lawsuit succeeds. Sadly, the jury who decides this lawsuit will have precious little understanding of the complexities that will be created.

Ditto with patent law.

Do you think the jury in the Samsung/Apple patent dispute knew a damned thing about the technical aspects of that case? We need panels of truly independent experts, rather than untutored juries, to decide a lot of things: everything except criminal cases.

 

[MarieM]

i dont think athletes should get paid. They get an education, meal and housing for FREE. When they travel most teams especially the big name school have private planes for the team....

Athletes on scholarship get a refund check every semester from their financial aid. And I'm pretty sure its a big one since they don't have to pay for anything.

I mean if you want to get paid for playing a sport.. go overseas after high school

 

[alexrgct]

MBB players definitely have the option of playing overseas for a year.

If Wikipedia is to be trusted, the average CFL salary is $82,500, which, after Canadian taxes, would be worth less than a free year of college education. So college is definitely the way to go for football players.

 

[UConn990411]

MBB players definitely have the option of playing overseas for a year.

If Wikipedia is to be trusted, the average CFL salary is $82,500, which, after Canadian taxes, would be worth less than a free year of college education. So college is definitely the way to go for football players.

A few have tried it, and failed miserably. People forget a lot of the guys in the European leagues are 25 to 30-year-old professionals.

I don't want to see college athletes get paid either, but it's an abomination what the high end NCAA officials make off the free labor of student-athletes. The NCAA needs to be taken to task for its constant exploitation of 18 to 22-year-olds. I'm happy to see that more and more lawsuits/protests are being brought against the "non-profit" organization.

 

[diggerfoot]

One of the growing demographics for people who need food assistance is graduates. Many graduates have so much debt burden when they leave school that they seek some kind of food assistance to help make ends meet (as an aside, there are at least four other disturbing, growing demographics of people needing food assistance as well, eg senior citizens who take care of their grandkids). Meanwhile, a portion of their earnings neither pays for past nor present goods and services, but for present interest on a past "good." That's not a future problem for those who get their schooling subsidized.

This past week I had a conversation with someone who spent life on campus in a football dorm for a football school. Head scratching stories of entitlement abound. This from a market that provides little real benefit for society. Instead of wondering why the student athletes aren't making more, perhaps we should be asking why the other parts of the system aren't making less.

 

[alexrgct]

A few have tried it, and failed miserably. People forget a lot of the guys in the European leagues are 25 to 30-year-old professionals.

I don't want to see college athletes get paid either, but it's an abomination what the high end NCAA officials make off the free labor of student-athletes. The NCAA needs to be taken to task for its constant exploitation of 18 to 22-year-olds. I'm happy to see that more and more lawsuits/protests are being brought against the "non-profit" organization.

Brandon Jennings did OK. Didn't exactly set the world on fire in Italy, but he made some money, got drafted somewhere between 10 and 15, and is now an established NBA player. Just saying it's an option if it's really too onerous an experience to spend two semesters on a college campus before going on to the NBA.

Again, the direct value (much less the future value) of the benefit is 25-50K a year in what is essentially an internship. College kids take unpaid interships all the time- these college kids are getting a free education in the process.

Only a handful of schools have profitable athletic departments. Making it cost more to have a CFB or MBB program will only serve to force schools to cut non-revenue sports.

The only changes I would like to see:

• Guarantee scholarships for four years rather than one as long as kid stays out of trouble and is making acceptable grades.
• Monitor majors and classes more carefully. If student-athletes are being herded in to gut majors and classes (as measured by, say, proportion of athletes in specific classes and majors relative to the student body in general), punish the schools accordingly. A free education is a significant benefit, but not if you're not actually getting one.

 

[UcMiami]

I doubt this thing has legs, but with courts you never know.
1. ADs are not overall profit centers at 95% of colleges.
2. Students athletes are already compensated at a rate much higher than almost any other kids with high school deplomas - not just free education, room, and board, but also free training facilities, trainers, coaches, and marketing of their potential, and access to world class medical.
3. The marketing of specific players by teams and the NCAA actually is a benefit to those players being marketed as it adds to their commercial value when they enter the pros. Players like Andrew Luck already have a national brand appeal by the time they enter the work force and they cash in. And even for the bottom end of the teams, the fact that they played for the team gives them a leg up in the local community and within the state when they enter the regular work force. (If you are interviewing in CT and Maria Conlin walks in looking for a job ...)
For basketball players, a few might have appeal to professional teams straight from high school, but very few. You can count the number of pro players in the USA that got to the NBA without at least one year of college ball on one hand.
For football players, no high school kid has ever jumped to the pros that I know of, and they would have zero appeal to pro teams. And being such a large scale team sport, without the organization that a college athletic department provides, those high school kids would have almost no chance of developing their skills to a point where a pro team would want them.

 

[alexrgct]

I doubt this thing has legs, but with courts you never know.
1. ADs are not overall profit centers at 95% of colleges.
2. Students athletes are already compensated at a rate much higher than almost any other kids with high school deplomas - not just free education, room, and board, but also free training facilities, trainers, coaches, and marketing of their potential, and access to world class medical.
3. The marketing of specific players by teams and the NCAA actually is a benefit to those players being marketed as it adds to their commercial value when they enter the pros. Players like Andrew Luck already have a national brand appeal by the time they enter the work force and they cash in. And even for the bottom end of the teams, the fact that they played for the team gives them a leg up in the local community and within the state when they enter the regular work force. (If you are interviewing in CT and Maria Conlin walks in looking for a job ...)
For basketball players, a few might have appeal to professional teams straight from high school, but very few. You can count the number of pro players in the USA that got to the NBA without at least one year of college ball on one hand.
For football players, no high school kid has ever jumped to the pros that I know of, and they would have zero appeal to pro teams. And being such a large scale team sport, without the organization that a college athletic department provides, those high school kids would have almost no chance of developing their skills to a point where a pro team would want them.

Agree with all of this. To your last point, you cannot be eligible for the NFL draft until you're three years out of high school. Very few 18 year old kids are physically or mentally ready to make that jump in any event. Most of those who were would be running backs such as Earl Campbell or Adrian Peterson. Notice there was a 28 year gap between those two guys, which in and of itself should speak to how rare it is.

 

[UcMiami]

Agree with all of this. To your last point, you cannot be eligible for the NFL draft until you're three years out of high school. Very few 18 year old kids are physically or mentally ready to make that jump in any event. Most of those who were would be running backs such as Earl Campbell or Adrian Peterson. Notice there was a 28 year gap between those two guys, which in and of itself should speak to how rare it is.

Thanks for the correction - wasn't sure what the rules were for the NFL. Wonder if the CFL has that restriction? And I would be curious as to when the NFL restriction began - doubt it has always been there.

 

[alexrgct]

Thanks for the correction - wasn't sure what the rules were for the NFL. Wonder if the CFL has that restriction? And I would be curious as to when the NFL restriction began - doubt it has always been there.

The CFL does not have the restriction. You could indeed go straight to the CFL out of high school. Recent high school #1 and complete headcase Bryce Brown considered it for a while.

However, the money is not great; average salary is $82,500, and you have to pay Canadian tax rates on it. If you get injured or flame out, it would be very hard to make the NFL, and of course you'd no longer be eligible to play college ball.

The "three year rule" has been around for a long time in the NFL, though it hasn't become an issue until recently. In 2004, Maurice Clarret challenged it because he was banned from playing college ball. It was also around this time that lots and lots of players started leaving after their junior or redshirt sophomore years. I'm not certain as to when exactly the rule was insituted in part because, for a long time, even star players tended stay in college for four years.

 

[UcMiami]

The CFL does not have the restriction. You could indeed go straight to the CFL out of high school. Recent high school #1 and complete headcase Bryce Brown considered it for a while.

However, the money is not great; average salary is $82,500, and you have to pay Canadian tax rates on it. If you get injured or flame out, it would be very hard to make the NFL, and of course you'd no longer be eligible to play college ball.

The "three year rule" has been around for a long time in the NFL, though it hasn't become an issue until recently. In 2004, Maurice Clarret challenged it because he was banned from playing college ball. It was also around this time that lots and lots of players started leaving after their junior or redshirt sophomore years. I'm not certain as to when exactly the rule was insituted in part because, for a long time, even star players tended stay in college for four years.

I think at some point the 'hardship' designation was added to allow kids to be drafted early (or was that MBB) to avoid some lawsuits.

 

[bschwartz]

Via Wikipedia
Indentured servant


Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture. Usually the father made the arrangements and signed the paperwork.They included men and women; most were under the age of 21, and most became helpers on farms or house servants. They were not paid cash. It was a system that provided jobs and—most important—transportation for poor young people from the overcrowded labor markets (such as Europe) who wanted to come to labor-short areas (at first, principally America, later, other colonies), but had no money to pay for it. The great majority became farmers and farm wives.

Sounds like this system is similar to the NCAA of today. Groups like the NCAA and the International Olympic Committees need to protect their revenue sources and maintain their monopolies. They won't give this up easily. I just wish they would give up the farcical notion of student athlete...just be more transparent and acknowledge that the NCAA is big business powered by cheap labor that has very little recourse on issues they disagree with -- and almost no possibility to organize.

We love our sports in America probably more than funding other issues like public education. So if a kid can not transfer to the school he/she wants or has to generate revenue to the benefit of other students, we generally do not care. As long as we can live vicariously through these athletes and feel like we win when they do. It is a broken system, and we wouldn't have it any other way. Creating an alternative system risks destroying something we hold dear -- watching someone excel on the public stage that we think represents us.

It is what it is and that is what it is...I just we were all a little more honest about it. The NCAA doesn't oversee student athletes, it is a business that uses indentured servants to generate revenue. IMHO.