Not sure how many of you have been following the trial, but it will come to a close today.

The outcome could have significant ramifications. Obviously, no one knows what the judge is going to rule, but if I want to put on my guestimate hat based on how the case has gone I can't envision how the judge could rule in the NCAA's favor.

The bigger question is how far does the judge go in her ruling. It could range from small fries all the way to redefining what the term definition for amateurism means, which could put the NCAA's model out of business.

Will be interesting to see how far she goes. It's clear that the plaintiff's have established and proved that the NCAA, conferences and schools are profiting off the name, image and likeness (NIL) of the players. What's not clear is can you continue to support the premise behind amaterism and pay players for aspects of the contribution for playing which thereby is in complete contradiction of the term amateurism.

Any thoughts on what you think the judge will rule? Again, putting on a guessing hat I can't envision the judge ruling in a way that will destroy the NCAA (although she could). My guess is the plaintiffs (O'Bannon) wins the case but the NCAA will be left on its own accord to determine a way to distribute revenues directly to the athletes (i.e. something along the lines of a trust post graduation). Would allow the amateurism aspects to remain in place but address the issue that's at hand with this suit.

I think she will rule that the players are already being paid in the form of 10s of thousands of dollars for about 6 months of their time in each year. Payment in the form of a education that people not on scholarship have to pay. To the tune of 30+ thousand a year. No matter what it's still years before any thing she rules on will be enforceable if she rules against the NCAA...

this case will probably end up in the Supreme Court i f the NCAA loses...on anything other than payment above their scholarship. If as you seem to think a trust fund is set aside then these kids will have to be taxed on their scholarship money also and maybe even travel expenses the school pays for each one. That will open a whole new world to these kids that they usually don't find out about till they are out of school...

working a real job.

Will definitely go through the appeals court. Not sure the Supreme Court would take this one especially if the appellates uphold the ruling.

But yes, it will take a couple of years to filter.

So you think the NCAA wins the case? My guess is you haven't paid close of attention. The NCAA botched the opportunity to make the very argument you made.

I haven't kept up with much of it but I can see the NCAA taking this in another direction than you are thinking and as I laid out.

1. They probably aren't bring up scholarship as a form of payment because they don't want to open the door to admit they are already "paying the players" in any form. I haven't kept up with it close enough to know this one way or the other. If they do that then it's no longer about payment as to how much because the NCAA admitted they pay the players a money value in the form of a scholarship.

2. if they lose the case they can then argue that point.

Again that's just a assumption on my part.

Based on some of the questions asked by the judge during the procedings she probably does not know what ncaa stands for and may not know that a football is not round. But I think she will rule in favor of the plaintiff anyway.

She definitley doesn't know the difference between a football and a basketball.

Not sure if that's good or bad in this instance. Maybe it helps objectivity?

I'm also not sure who I want to win this case. I sense a no-win situation for us regardless, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Never try to read a judge on their questions because a lot of times it's just so the record is strong. I have a friend who's argued a number of cases in appellate court and one case in the Supreme Court. He told me every case but one has went the opposite of the questioning by the judges.

As this looks to drag on for years, I'm more interested in the pending lawsuits seeking injunctions and anti-trust monitors.

Quote: In May, Hausfeld sent a letter to Arizona State president Michael Crow asking what voice athletes would have under the Pac-12's proposed reforms. Hausfeld raised antitrust concerns by the Power 5 because they collectively discussed what rules -- such as cost of attendance stipends -- to create. In terms of antitrust law, Hausfeld said last week that the conferences would have been better off unilaterally deciding rules based on prices in their market rather than 65 schools joining together.

"I don't think it's acceptable to the law," Hausfeld said.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ing-played

Quote:* In late May, former West Virginia football player Nick Kindler sued the NCAA and the Power Five conferences over cost of attendance. Kindler's suit, filed by the same lawyers as Alston's, was created largely to centralize the case in the Northern District of California. Also, the Kindler suit alleged the Power Five are still acting as a cartel in ongoing cost-of-attendance talks, citing a letter in May by Pac-12 presidents to the other major conferences. Kindler wants an antitrust compliance monitor appointed.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ship-cases