http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-suit-loss

If O'Bannon wins ,That jerk will be responsible for the Death of all College Athletics .

The trial isn't until July 2014, and even then if the NCAA loses, they'll appeal. It's a threat for sure but let's see how it rolls out before rushing to a judgement of a death to major college sports.

It is one thing to win a suit like this it would be a completely different thing to actually execute the details. Who gets paid what ?? Does star QB make the same as the 2nd string punter ? If the Football and Basketball players are being paid half of a tv contract are they responsible for any of the overhead for being a member of the Football and Basketball team like travel, coaching staff, facilities, medical care, food, housing etc..?? How would the players be treated from a tax stand point ? Contract labor, regular employees? If they are earning money then kiss the Pell Grant money they all receive goodbye...which is not a bad thing IMO since a lot of these FB and BB players are not serious students but drain hundreds of millions of dollars from the Pell Grant system. If any paid athlete leaves college early should they have to reimburse the school for the scholarship money ?? This case basically opens Pandora's box of the very grey area of the so called "student athlete" who is more of a low paid entertainer on a college campus who might or might not pursue their education.

I do think that students should have money deposited in a account for them for uniform sales with their number and name and any video game use of their image etc..

No judge in the country would impose the actual percentage of tv revenue that should go to the players.

The only thing they could do is declare the NCAA an illegal monopoly that is using its monopoly power to impose salary limits. And if they do that, I'm not sure how they could justify any amateur organization that prohibits paying players (including NCAA division 3 and high school sports).

(04-02-2013 06:24 AM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  I do think that students should have money deposited in a account for them for uniform sales with their number and name and any video game use of their image etc..

That sounds pretty reasonable. I always thought the video game angle was taking advantage of players.

UC doesn't allow jerseys to be sold with players' names on them. They don't even sell jerseys with the numbers of current star players on them. IMO that's a good thing because it fits in with the spirit of amateurism. Do other schools do this as well?

If O'Bannon wins, anyone think some schools will just say fak it and form some new league? I'm thinking schools like Stanford, Duke, Vandebilt, etc? Heck, the BIG commissioner said they wouldn't pay. He may be bluffing, but some of the higher profile academic programs may simply not pay since they are already giving atheltes lots of scholarship money.

Quote:"I haven't followed the case closely," Haden, a former practicing attorney said. "But what I read from legal scholars, it's not a slam dunk for the NCAA ... All of a sudden, your television revenue -- let's say it's $20 million a year [per school]. Now if they win, it's $10 million a year. How do you make your 21 sports work on half the revenue?"

MY RESPONSE>>>>>I don't know Pat Haden, how do all the other schools that aren't part of the Power 5 and $20 million dollar a year in just TV revenues make it work?

How does the American public make it work in today's economy?

How bout for starters you try sticking to a BUDGET.

I ain't arguing the validity of the O'Bannon lawsuit and whether players should be paid or not, but it's statements like Haden's that really piss me off when considering all the other schools out there not in the Power 5 that are trying to survive in what has become the SEMIPROFESSIONAL WORLD of COLLEGE ATHLETICS and how they have been able to operate on miniscule budgets, but for some reason many of the "BIG DAWGS" can't seem to stay out of the RED when they are making super dollars when compared to the other conferences.

IMHO, a stupid statement by Haden.

(04-02-2013 09:00 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

Quote:"I haven't followed the case closely," Haden, a former practicing attorney said. "But what I read from legal scholars, it's not a slam dunk for the NCAA ... All of a sudden, your television revenue -- let's say it's $20 million a year [per school]. Now if they win, it's $10 million a year. How do you make your 21 sports work on half the revenue?"

MY RESPONSE>>>>>I don't know Pat Haden, how do all the other schools that aren't part of the Power 5 and $20 million dollar a year in just TV revenues make it work?

How does the American public make it work in today's economy?

How bout for starters you try sticking to a BUDGET.

I ain't arguing the validity of the O'Bannon lawsuit and whether players should be paid or not, but it's statements like Haden's that really piss me off when considering all the other schools out there not in the Power 5 that are trying to survive in what has become the SEMIPROFESSIONAL WORLD of COLLEGE ATHLETICS and how they have been able to operate on miniscule budgets, but for some reason many of the "BIG DAWGS" can't seem to stay out of the RED when they making super dollars when compared to the other conferences.

IMHO, a stupid statement by Haden.

very well thought statement

(04-02-2013 05:15 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  If O'Bannon wins ,That jerk will be responsible for the Death of all College Athletics .

I doubt it would impact the non-AQs that much.

MAC schools receive around 100k per year in TV money. 50% of that...

This will cause Tuition to increase significantly.

(04-02-2013 09:17 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  This will cause Tuition to increase significantly.

For AQ's maybe. Not us little guys.

I'm going to argue that it's going to be WORSE for smaller schools because there's less money available for them. Before everyone gets all gung-ho about "soaking the rich," you might want to first notice that you're downstream from them.

Why can't the NCAA just condition an athletic scholarship on: (1) an athlete not accepting payment for athletic performance, including the use of the athletes likeness in video games, advertisements, jersey/t-shirt sales, etc; and (2) require each athlete as a condition of signing a NLI to sign over all college athletic income to the university during the period of the NLI? At the professional level, teams implement similar clauses to secure marketing rights, etc., and in the corporate world, this is done regularly (ie., patents, etc.).

(04-02-2013 11:20 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  Why can't the NCAA just condition an athletic scholarship on: (1) an athlete not accepting payment for athletic performance, including the use of the athletes likeness in video games, advertisements, jersey/t-shirt sales, etc; and (2) require each athlete as a condition of signing a NLI to sign over all college athletic income to the university during the period of the NLI? At the professional level, teams implement similar clauses to secure marketing rights, etc., and in the corporate world, this is done regularly (ie., patents, etc.).

They already do. That's the point of the lawsuit. SA's sign over all their rights just to get a scholarship. The lawsuit started out as Ed O'Bannon suing EA Sports for using his likeness in an NCAA-licensed video game. Now it's ballooned to include TV revenue.

It could very easily be the death of women's sports, Title IX not withstanding. It will all come down to who brings in the bucks, and who doesn't. Women's sports are a drain on almost all athletic departments budgets. Title IX won't stand if this case goes in O'Bannion's favor. With very few exceptions, the women's programs won't be worth keeping, and forcing universities to do so will be an unnecessary drain on capital. I can't see them enforcing Title IX under such circumstances. Only the profitable programs for each school will remain, and only a very few women's programs make any money...

(04-02-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could very easily be the death of women's sports, Title IX not withstanding. It will all come down to who brings in the bucks, and who doesn't. Women's sports are a drain on almost all athletic departments budgets. Title IX won't stand if this case goes in O'Bannion's favor. With very few exceptions, the women's programs won't be worth keeping, and forcing universities to do so will be an unnecessary drain on capital. I can't see them enforcing Title IX under such circumstances. Only the profitable programs for each school will remain, and only a very few women's programs make any money...

Thats what I fear. There was one article that asked "Why should Denard Robinson Fund Field Hockey?" I think it was Dan Wetzel but i'm not certain. He actually was saying that the players should not have to fund the other sports. It was such a joke and insult to all actual student athletes.

(04-02-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could very easily be the death of women's sports, Title IX not withstanding. It will all come down to who brings in the bucks, and who doesn't. Women's sports are a drain on almost all athletic departments budgets. Title IX won't stand if this case goes in O'Bannion's favor. With very few exceptions, the women's programs won't be worth keeping, and forcing universities to do so will be an unnecessary drain on capital. I can't see them enforcing Title IX under such circumstances. Only the profitable programs for each school will remain, and only a very few women's programs make any money...

Title IX lawsuits ran rampant through college athletics in the early '90's. There are enough rabid feminists out there that each school (through the NCAA) ensures that there is a proportionate balance. Title IX is a Federal issue and won't go anywhere, no matter what happens to the NCAA. Unless the athletic departments are going to sever their ties with their school and lose their tax-exempt status and establish themselves as for-profit agencies, then Title IX will remain.

Don't know what they could do proactively. They just have to wait and see.

Maybe they will follow the B1G's suggestion and end anything but need based scholarships. In addition they could allow the student-athletes to hold jobs like any other student.

The one and dones in bb would find their way to minor basketball leagues. The NFL would probably have to set up a farm league.

(04-02-2013 11:53 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could very easily be the death of women's sports, Title IX not withstanding. It will all come down to who brings in the bucks, and who doesn't. Women's sports are a drain on almost all athletic departments budgets. Title IX won't stand if this case goes in O'Bannion's favor. With very few exceptions, the women's programs won't be worth keeping, and forcing universities to do so will be an unnecessary drain on capital. I can't see them enforcing Title IX under such circumstances. Only the profitable programs for each school will remain, and only a very few women's programs make any money...

Title IX lawsuits ran rampant through college athletics in the early '90's. There are enough rabid feminists out there that each school (through the NCAA) ensures that there is a proportionate balance. Title IX is a Federal issue and won't go anywhere, no matter what happens to the NCAA. Unless the athletic departments are going to sever their ties with their school and lose their tax-exempt status and establish themselves as for-profit agencies, then Title IX will remain.

If the athletes that generate these huge sums of money get a piece of it, I seriously doubt the federal government can continue to force schools to put forth an equal amount of sports for women, when they don't generate any income. Once it becomes all about the money, equality will fly out the window. Bet on it...

If this goes through, only the profitable programs will remain, and very few women's programs generate any income to speak of. Only a very few do, and they won't for long without anyone to compete against...