Litigation to force paying of players?

[Jarhead_1775]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...18/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/?mobile=no

I wasn't aware such a thing existed. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. As far a Delaney's threats, yeah right. Sure you'll kill the entire revenue stream if you lose a chunk to the players. Talk about throwing a temper tantrum. The whole business makes my want to piss on his shoes, unless he invites us, in which case ill clean them with my tongue.

 

[huskymedic]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...18/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/?mobile=no

I wasn't aware such a thing existed. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. As far a Delaney's threats, yeah right. Sure you'll kill the entire revenue stream if you lose a chunk to the players. Talk about throwing a temper tantrum. The whole business makes my want to piss on his shoes, unless he invites us, in which case ill clean them with my tongue.

Actual Testimony... http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.01.pdf

Can't believe a damn thing any of these guys say... So disingenuous!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It is not too unrealistic. Hell will freeze over before Northwestern or Vanderbilt have paid athletic teams.

An O'Bannon victory would be devastating to the vast majority of student athletes. There are more Northwesterns and Vanderbilts than you think. In addition, any men's sport that did not pay for itself would immediately become non-scholarship, with no exceptions, with the appropriate reductions in women's sports too. I would imagine that 50% of athletic scholarships would be eliminated overnight, while football and basketball players would become semi-pro non-students, which I guess a few of them are already.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

It is not too unrealistic. Hell will freeze over before Northwestern or Vanderbilt have paid athletic teams.

An O'Bannon victory would be devastating to the vast majority of student athletes. There are more Northwesterns and Vanderbilts than you think. In addition, any men's sport that did not pay for itself would immediately become non-scholarship, with no exceptions, with the appropriate reductions in women's sports too. I would imagine that 50% of athletic scholarships would be eliminated overnight, while football and basketball players would become semi-pro non-students, which I guess a few of them are already.

I hadn't thought about the vandys and nw's.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The problem with college athletics is that huge TV contracts, conference realignment and the massive salaries paid to coaches and athletic directors is really stretching the idea that these are non-profit organizations. If they are for profit, then why isn't the help paid?

Football and basketball have always subsidized the rest of the sports, and if those subsidies are cut off, which they would be if players were paid, lots of sports would be hurt.

My gut is that the plaintiff's lawyers would realize that cutting the golden goose's head off would be devastating to everyone. Now the O'Bannon case is limited right now to the use of likeness or image of players, and his proposal would be that any earnings were held in a trust until after players graduate. This is a recognition by O'Bannon, and co-Plaintiffs Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson, that they recognize the consequences of trying to pay players. It is also a legally absurd proposal. If the use of likenesses is illegal, then why is the solution a trust controlled by some third party? Why wouldn't the players get revenue derived from the use of their likeness while in school? And why stop at the use of likenesses?

It is clear that O'Bannon, et al think they are doing good, but it is just as clear that they have opened a Pandora's Box that would be devastating to college athletics and hundreds of thousands of current and future student athletes, and they know it.

 

[CTMike]

The minute that O'Bannon wins is the final nail in the coffin for the NCAA. Delaney splits off and forms their own association.

 

[upstater]

College sports LOSE money. They don't MAKE money.

 

[upstater]

And no, it's not an idle threat to deemphasize sports if some reason this lawsuit wins. It would create too many problems inside the classroom. And who decides what revenues are shared anyway? and how?

This is why the lawsuit won't win.

I think the schools would be mainly worried that they would have to finally come clean and admit they don't make profits, because then you'd have a rear flank attack on the schools.

 

[The Funster]

Many ADs are losing money already. Schools have been cutting programs. On first glance, this would kill college athletics as we know it today. However, the disparity between the schools that make millions upon millions versus the schools that lose millions would be an interesting study. Would ADs open up their books?

There are two 800 lb gorillas in the room: B1G and SEC. It is not surprising that the latter would embrace a pay for play model and the former would not.

 

[upstater]

Many ADs are losing money already. Schools have been cutting programs. On first glance, this would kill college athletics as we know it today. However, the disparity between the schools that make millions upon millions versus the schools that lose millions would be an interesting study. Would ADs open up their books?

There are two 800 lb gorillas in the room: B1G and SEC. It is not surprising that the latter would embrace a pay for play model and the former would not.

Thing is, B1G was definitely in favor of paying $4k a year per player. Even that would cause huge problems in the classroom.

 

[The Funster]

But a stipend is different than a collectively bargained distribution of profits. Can you elaborate a little bit on what "problems in classrooms" would be. If you have someplace else, I've missed it.

 

[CL82]

Thing is, B1G was definitely in favor of paying $4k a year per player. Even that would cause huge problems in the classroom.

why?

 

[businesslawyer]

The problem with college athletics is that huge TV contracts, conference realignment and the massive salaries paid to coaches and athletic directors is really stretching the idea that these are non-profit organizations. If they are for profit, then why isn't the help paid?

Football and basketball have always subsidized the rest of the sports, and if those subsidies are cut off, which they would be if players were paid, lots of sports would be hurt.

My gut is that the plaintiff's lawyers would realize that cutting the golden goose's head off would be devastating to everyone. Now the O'Bannon case is limited right now to the use of likeness or image of players, and his proposal would be that any earnings were held in a trust until after players graduate. This is a recognition by O'Bannon, and co-Plaintiffs Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson, that they recognize the consequences of trying to pay players. It is also a legally absurd proposal. If the use of likenesses is illegal, then why is the solution a trust controlled by some third party? Why wouldn't the players get revenue derived from the use of their likeness while in school? And why stop at the use of likenesses?

It is clear that O'Bannon, et al think they are doing good, but it is just as clear that they have opened a Pandora's Box that would be devastating to college athletics and hundreds of thousands of current and future student athletes, and they know it.

It would be devastating for college sports as we know them. It would not be devastating for college sports.

About 100 schools would go off and quit pretending their athletic teams were being manned by student athletes, pay their players and make as much money from athletics as they can. Everyone else would go back to fielding teams of non-scholarship athletes, as Division III does now, where it is really about students learning the teamwork and discipline that it takes to play a sport while being a college student. Frankly, the world may end up being in a better place after the split happens.

 

[upstater]

why?

Because students are subsidizing the AD. They know this. If classmates are getting paid on top, it's coming out of their pockets. The classroom dynamic gets poisoned by this. The same redistribution is in play when it comes to scholarships, but in that case, no one knows who is getting what, and almost always the redistribution is from more affluent students to the less affluent.

There are already problems with D1 athletics in the classroom. I teach a 3 hour class that meets once a week on Wed. nights. so, 16 meetings total. You can't miss this class, I tell students. I give one absence. So, here I am in the 3rd week of semester, and I get a sheet from the AD telling me how many classes my athletes have to miss. I've just finished telling students they have to come--it's the nature of the class. The AD says they have to make up the work by university policy. If I apply my own policy, the university won't back me up because officially there is no attendance policy. So there you go... And the bizarre thing is, these are track athletes and such who used to have weekend meets. Now they have meets during the middle of the week.

Last year, I had a bball player who left mid-term to train in Phoenix for the draft. Having a kid miss the vast majority of classes presents problems for the rest of the class since his absences are by policy largely excused. The alternative for players is to take the sort of classes that UNC set up.

I am not totally against the idea of semi-pros (and who therefore don't receive scholarships or aid or special waivers in the classroom) getting paid. As a fan I wouldn't be interested in watching. But if they are paid and don't have to attend classes, it would be just some bizarre thing that a university does on the side. Universities do a lot of bizarre things. Nor am I against agents paying players. I'm just against schools paying them for a variety of reasons (lack of profits, the apprentice relationship that all other laborers on campus abide by, etc.)

 

[CL82]

Because students are subsidizing the AD. They know this. If classmates are getting paid on top, it's coming out of their pockets. The classroom dynamic gets poisoned by this. The same redistribution is in play when it comes to scholarships, but in that case, no one knows who is getting what, and almost always the redistribution is from more affluent students to the less affluent.

So are you saying that the price point makes a difference or that the charactorization makes a difference? For what it's worth, I'd guess that most kids don't know or care very much about the cost of college generally and any athletic subsidy specifically. That's not how they're wired.

 

[upstater]

So are you saying that the price point makes a difference or that the charactorization makes a difference? For what it worth, I guess that most kids don't know or care very much about the cost of college generally and any athletic subsidy specifically. That's not how they're wired.

Students know down to the penny, in my experience. Over 50% of my students work long hours and pay for their educations. This is at the state's flagship institution, and the students are largely top 10% of their high school class. So a good group of kids. I agree with you that in the past, when tuition was cheaper, students didn't make as big a deal. College has changed now because it's truly a struggle for students to finish. We don't offer enough required classes, there are fewer faculty, less access and less support. The student newspaper--read by a great many--features discussions of university finances every single day. Students not only are aware of how their dollars are being spent (Donald Trump was paid $100k for a talk, and when the students made an uproar, he countered by saying he would donate it to a non-profit charity, I think it was animal-related), but also the politics that guides university decisions. Two years ago, the state raised tuition from $4,300 to $4,900, a $600 bump. All but $50 of that money was used to cover a hole in state finances, and not returned to the universities at all. There were big protests on campus that a captured group was singled out for what was effectively a tax on them. They are very aware.

 

[CL82]

Students know down to the penny, in my experience. Over 50% of my students work long hours and pay for their educations. This is at the state's flagship institution, and the students are largely top 10% of their high school class. So a good group of kids. I agree with you that in the past, when tuition was cheaper, students didn't make as big a deal. College has changed now because it's truly a struggle for students to finish. We don't offer enough required classes, there are fewer faculty, less access and less support. The student newspaper--read by a great many--features discussions of university finances every single day. Students not only are aware of how their dollars are being spent (Donald Trump was paid $100k for a talk, and when the students made an uproar, he countered by saying he would donate it to a non-profit charity, I think it was animal-related), but also the politics that guides university decisions. Two years ago, the state raised tuition from $4,300 to $4,900, a $600 bump. All but $50 of that money was used to cover a hole in state finances, and not returned to the universities at all. There were big protests on campus that a captured group was singled out for what was effectively a tax on them. They are very aware.

And do sense that kids, in general, are opposed to athletic scholarships?

 

[ZooCougar]

So are you saying that the price point makes a difference or that the charactorization makes a difference? For what it's worth, I'd guess that most kids don't know or care very much about the cost of college generally and any athletic subsidy specifically. That's not how they're wired.

That depends on the school and the type of student.

 

[Penfield]

I am no expert on this subject so my ideas may be totally off base or completely stupid. I also have no idea how Title 9 would play a factor in this. Everyone seems to be hungup on a very straight forward Pay to Play model. Why cant they think of something more creative than that?

1) Would they ever let players make money by doing sponsorships? I think the issues that could arise here are pretty obvious. Fed Ex could just have every Memphis basketball player do a 30 second ad and give them all $100,000. Could the NCAA or the next governing body set up a committe to approve these deals to make sure everything is on the up and up?

2) Why not limit the Name and Likeness Release to only while the student is in school. After that they get their likeness back. If Coca Cola wants to use Bryce Drew or Tate George's shot to sell soda then they should get a cut of the money. The money would go through the NCAA and the schools have nothing to do with it.

3) Could the NCAA, BCS, & Conferences pay players instead of the schools? One of the biggest issue seems to be that the schools dont want to pay the players. Would it be crazy for the NCAA, BCS and Conferences to set up prize money based on where you finish in their tournaments (ie everyone that plays in the first round gets $4000, second round $8000 etc.)? Is the problem that you have to provide the exact same money for all sports - men and women?

 

[The Funster]

1) Would they ever let players make money by doing sponsorships? I think the issues that could arise here are pretty obvious. Fed Ex could just have every Memphis basketball player do a 30 second ad and give them all $100,000. Could the NCAA or the next governing body set up a committe to approve these deals to make sure everything is on the up and up?

Players would go to the schools that have sponsors who are willing to pay out the big bucks. Then you'd have the sponsors running the AD.

3) Could the NCAA, BCS, & Conferences pay players instead of the schools? One of the biggest issue seems to be that the schools dont want to pay the players. Would it be crazy for the NCAA, BCS and Conferences to set up prize money based on where you finish in their tournaments (ie everyone that plays in the first round gets $4000, second round $8000 etc.)? Is the problem that you have to provide the exact same money for all sports - men and women?

IMO, that would be the problem. Discrimination.

 

[upstater]

And do sense that kids, in general, are opposed to athletic scholarships?

No, I don't get that sense at all. They don't know the ins and outs of the AD budget. They think sports pay for themselves. But the student newspaper did point out that they pay a $1k plus student fee. When I looked at the amount that went to the AD's budget, it was $500 per student. And that has nothing to do with gym facilities for students which are part of the school budget. It does cover, however, club sports and intramurals. That's pretty hefty ($500) for that sort of thing.

 

[upstater]

I am no expert on this subject so my ideas may be totally off base or completely stupid. I also have no idea how Title 9 would play a factor in this. Everyone seems to be hungup on a very straight forward Pay to Play model. Why cant they think of something more creative than that?

1) Would they ever let players make money by doing sponsorships? I think the issues that could arise here are pretty obvious. Fed Ex could just have every Memphis basketball player do a 30 second ad and give them all $100,000. Could the NCAA or the next governing body set up a committe to approve these deals to make sure everything is on the up and up?

2) Why not limit the Name and Likeness Release to only while the student is in school. After that they get their likeness back. If Coca Cola wants to use Bryce Drew or Tate George's shot to sell soda then they should get a cut of the money. The money would go through the NCAA and the schools have nothing to do with it.

3) Could the NCAA, BCS, & Conferences pay players instead of the schools? One of the biggest issue seems to be that the schools dont want to pay the players. Would it be crazy for the NCAA, BCS and Conferences to set up prize money based on where you finish in their tournaments (ie everyone that plays in the first round gets $4000, second round $8000 etc.)? Is the problem that you have to provide the exact same money for all sports - men and women?

1. I don't see why this isn't possible. Agents, boosters, whatever can pay them.
2. The likeness question is now moot since there is no more NCAA basketball by EA Sports, and there hasn't been for a few years.
3. Conference money is given to the schools to meet their bottom lines. So if you take that money away, you blow a hole in the school budgets. But if you're only going to reward the winners of tourneys, etc., I guess that's another dynamic, and it probably wouldn't satisfy anyone.

 

[upstater]

Players would go to the schools that have sponsors who are willing to pay out the big bucks. Then you'd have the sponsors running the AD.


3) Could the NCAA, BCS, & Conferences pay players instead of the schools? One of the biggest issue seems to be that the schools dont want to pay the players. Would it be crazy for the NCAA, BCS and Conferences to set up prize money based on where you finish in their tournaments (ie everyone that plays in the first round gets $4000, second round $8000 etc.)? Is the problem that you have to provide the exact same money for all sports - men and women?

IMO, that would be the problem. Discrimination.[/quote]

Agreed that it would likely ruin college sports. My answer to #1 was simply on principle. I don't see why outside sources can't pay these kids. If someone wanted to pay me when I was working as a TA, I'd be glad to take it. That being said, TAs like athletes are forbidden from working during the academic year. It's part of the contract.

 

[Penfield]

Players would go to the schools that have sponsors who are willing to pay out the big bucks. Then you'd have the sponsors running the AD.

I am not saying that plan would not have some serious issue but how close to reality is this already anyways? Robert Burton flips his lid about Coach PP and Hathway gets fired.

T Boone Pickins basically runs OSU. FedEx and Memphis. I'm sure the list goes on.

 

[huskypantz]

The ONLY way this can work is for the NCAA or some other body to take a percentage cut of the conference media tier 1/2 contracts and divide it equally to each D1 athlete for every university in the respective sport that warrants a stipend. And I know that idea would get blown up by the BCS conferences in a second.