Excerpt from article:

A federal judge on Friday set the stage for the Ed O'Bannon antitrust trial to occur as scheduled on June 9.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken denied the NCAA's outstanding motions seeking to delay or redefine the case and kept the scheduled trial date. She also separated the O'Bannon antitrust case from the Sam Keller right-of-publicity case that's mainly focused on videogames and set a March 23, 2015 trial date for the Keller case.

Wilken denied the NCAA's request to sever all evidence and claims related to videogames from the antitrust case. That means the O'Bannon plaintiffs can use evidence and arguments about the NCAA's relationship with Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Company over videogames.

“We got everything we wanted from the ruling and that was to stop the efforts by the NCAA of diverting the issue,” said Michael Hausfeld, lead attorney for the O'Bannon plaintiffs.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...for-june-9

the good stuff is about to begin

Pac-12 CEOs asked the other P5 CEOs to respond (read: agree with) their list of proposed reforms by the week before the O'Bannon trial starts. Not a coincidence.

(05-23-2014 07:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Pac-12 CEOs asked the other P5 CEOs to respond (read: agree with) their list of proposed reforms by the week before the O'Bannon trial starts. Not a coincidence.

legal distraction.

(05-23-2014 07:08 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 07:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Pac-12 CEOs asked the other P5 CEOs to respond (read: agree with) their list of proposed reforms by the week before the O'Bannon trial starts. Not a coincidence.

legal distraction.

Exactly. It's "optics". They want to tell the judge that they are looking out for athletes and reform is on the way.

IMO, the NCAA have to intentionally lose this one. Reason is because if they start paying players, they can use that to pay them.

Sent from my SPH-M840 using Tapatalk

ESPN's legal analyst says that there is virtually no way to adequately "settle" this case. He states that the judge might try to broker a settlement, but that the NCAA is going to go tooth-and-nail in an effort to fight it.

This will get really ugly.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...next-month

Funny that a Guy thats just a blip in most peoples memory and most Young people haven't a clue Whom He is or played for can cause so much trouble. Most players would feel honored if their name was used in a video game or on a Jersey.

Its been clear for a long long time that the "system" is out of whack. The belief by some that they could continue to make themselves rich off the backs of these "student athletes" while literally many of them go to bed hungry--it was never sustainable. You can't have a player injured for life on your behalf and not take care of that person indefinitely.

Things have to change.

(05-25-2014 01:18 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  ESPN's legal analyst says that there is virtually no way to adequately "settle" this case. He states that the judge might try to broker a settlement, but that the NCAA is going to go tooth-and-nail in an effort to fight it.

This will get really ugly.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...next-month

A very key quote from this article:

Quote:Legal analyst Marc Edelman said the decision by the plaintiffs to forgo damages was the key to getting the trial to move forward because there were a lot of competing claims about who could be paid and how much if they win. Now the trial will be more condensed and focus strictly on whether the NCAA illegally has restrained the market for amateur athletes.

"What I expect to happen after a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs by the judge at trial is that individual colleges or conferences will make their own rules in respect to licensing rather than the NCAA," said Edelman, an associate professor of law at City University of New York who specializes in sports and antitrust issues. "This is a movement from an illegal restraint of trade toward a free market, and I very much like their chances at trial."

I've said for quite awhile that the NCAA (with its "everyone is equal" approach) has always been much more of a walking antitrust violation than the power conferences taking more power, money and autonomy. The University of Oklahoma v. NCAA case from the 1980s regarding TV rights effectively stated that, and the O'Bannon case may end up doing the exact same thing with respect to compensation.

(05-27-2014 07:26 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  Its been clear for a long long time that the "system" is out of whack. The belief by some that they could continue to make themselves rich off the backs of these "student athletes" while literally many of them go to bed hungry--it was never sustainable. You can't have a player injured for life on your behalf and not take care of that person indefinitely.

Things have to change.

Absolutely agree with those topics. But likeness in videogames or Jerseys not so much. If the player is good He gets the big payout in the Pro ranks. I'm not a lawyer but I believe the LOI covered Universities right to likeness and names on University uniforms and such things after a player graduated including Photos and HOF merchandise if He achieved that status.