http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...trust-case

It will have monumental ramifications. College sports as we know it could have ended today.

You have to think that the NCAA will appeal this. I obviously haven't read the 99 page ruling, but it seems that California is the one place you wouldn't want a decision about labor practices to be made. (I even think their judiciary is too liberal and I'm a democrat.) This one looks to be going to the Supreme Court because neither side is going to drop it.

(08-08-2014 06:49 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  You have to think that the NCAA will appeal this. I obviously haven't read the 99 page ruling, but it seems that California is the one place you wouldn't want a decision about labor practices to be made. (I even think their judiciary is too liberal and I'm a democrat.) This one looks to be going to the Supreme Court because neither side is going to drop it.

Correct. This will take years to be resolved as it makes it's way to the Supreme Court. Nothing really changed today.

I believe the players do have a right to their own images and likenesses and should be able to earn $ from the sale of them and also be able to collect $ from the sale of autographs. Everybody is making $ off of amateur athletics except the athletes.

Some might stay in college longer if they could make $ off of the attention they generate

(08-08-2014 07:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 06:49 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  You have to think that the NCAA will appeal this. I obviously haven't read the 99 page ruling, but it seems that California is the one place you wouldn't want a decision about labor practices to be made. (I even think their judiciary is too liberal and I'm a democrat.) This one looks to be going to the Supreme Court because neither side is going to drop it.

Correct. This will take years to be resolved as it makes it's way to the Supreme Court. Nothing really changed today.

Years? I'm thinking decades, appeals, delays, more appeals, more delays.

I don't think college athletes should be paid or receive money for sponsorships, autographs, etc...

Then again, I don't think video games, merchandise, and any such likeness should be made of any college sport athlete - sell school apparel and merchandise, but nothing with player names, numbers, or likenesses. Plus, I don't think college sports in general should be included in video games, movies, and other physical or digital things sold for money.

Stick to the professional sports - there are plenty of pro sport leagues around the globe!

(08-08-2014 10:43 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I don't think college athletes should be paid or receive money for sponsorships, autographs, etc...

Then again, I don't think video games, merchandise, and any such likeness should be made of any college sport athlete - sell school apparel and merchandise, but nothing with player names, numbers, or likenesses. Plus, I don't think college sports in general should be included in video games, movies, and other physical or digital things sold for money.

Stick to the professional sports - there are plenty of pro sport leagues around the globe!

But, if you sell a jersey, with a number on it, then any fan associates that player wearing the number with that jersey whether the name is on the back or not.

(08-08-2014 06:49 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  You have to think that the NCAA will appeal this. I obviously haven't read the 99 page ruling, but it seems that California is the one place you wouldn't want a decision about labor practices to be made. (I even think their judiciary is too liberal and I'm a democrat.) This one looks to be going to the Supreme Court because neither side is going to drop it.

If I were the NCAA, I'd let the ruling stand. The NCAA has a terrible case and the ruling actually does what's set to happen anyway. Full cost of attendance is coming via autonomy---so why fight a losing battle agianst it in the courts?

The only other part of the ruling deals with rights fees or the use of the players likeness or image. That is coming soon as well and the NCAA has a very poor case on that issue too. The judges solution simply strikes down the NCAA ban against the players earning money on thier likeness while playing college athletics. It leaves the cap on earnings up the schools, but it does say the cap cannot be set below $5000. That 5k cap is a career cap by the way. The money would be held in trust until graduation. The money is also pooled, so the faceless Aggie left guard will make as much as Johnny Football. The P5 also intends to do something like this---so there is little reason to fight this ruling unless the NCAA just likes paying lawyers.

That said, I do think they will continue to fight the ruling, but I also think its pointless.

(08-08-2014 07:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 06:49 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  You have to think that the NCAA will appeal this. I obviously haven't read the 99 page ruling, but it seems that California is the one place you wouldn't want a decision about labor practices to be made. (I even think their judiciary is too liberal and I'm a democrat.) This one looks to be going to the Supreme Court because neither side is going to drop it.

Correct. This will take years to be resolved as it makes it's way to the Supreme Court. Nothing really changed today.

Incorrect. The judge made it clear that some aspects of her ruling will not be delayed pending any appeals. Things did change today.

(08-08-2014 10:43 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I don't think college athletes should be paid or receive money for sponsorships, autographs, etc...

Then again, I don't think video games, merchandise, and any such likeness should be made of any college sport athlete - sell school apparel and merchandise, but nothing with player names, numbers, or likenesses. Plus, I don't think college sports in general should be included in video games, movies, and other physical or digital things sold for money.

Stick to the professional sports - there are plenty of pro sport leagues around the globe!

I agree, as much as I loved the NCAA football games... They shouldn't have been made. The only thing I think the NCAA should really fight is jersey sales with player numbers. A number on a jersey doesn't belong to the player it belongs to the team (or the school)

Take notre dame for example they had two people wearing the number 5 in their most recent NC appearance. Those people (Teo and Golson) happened to be the two most popular players. But there have been other 5's in the past that have been good and deserved recognition as well.

If your going to give money for nameless jersey sales then does a defensive player automatically get a chunk of that money just because he wears the same number?
Giving players at different schools different amounts of money money destroyed any semblance of fair competition. Really a portion of the money should be pooled for the whole NCAA and split evenly among each athlete. It's the only way to stop athletes from automatically picking the Texas' or the Ohio St.'s of the world just because they know the jersey sales there are enormous.

This ruling is really a pretty bad one. I do wonder if the judge knows that by trying to 'help' the players she may have destroyed a system that let thousands of kids go to school for free.

(08-09-2014 12:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 06:49 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  You have to think that the NCAA will appeal this. I obviously haven't read the 99 page ruling, but it seems that California is the one place you wouldn't want a decision about labor practices to be made. (I even think their judiciary is too liberal and I'm a democrat.) This one looks to be going to the Supreme Court because neither side is going to drop it.

If I were the NCAA, I'd let the ruling stand. The NCAA has a terrible case and the ruling actually does what's set to happen anyway. Full cost of attendance is coming via autonomy---so why fight a losing battle agianst it in the courts?

The only other part of the ruling deals with rights fees or the use of the players likeness or image. That is coming soon as well and the NCAA has a very poor case on that issue too. The judges solution simply strikes down the NCAA ban against the players earning money on thier likeness while playing college athletics. It leaves the cap on earnings up the schools, but it does say the cap cannot be set below $5000. That 5k cap is a career cap by the way. The money would be held in trust until graduation. The money is also pooled, so the faceless Aggie left guard will make as much as Johnny Football. The P5 also intends to do something like this---so there is little reason to fight this ruling unless the NCAA just likes paying lawyers.

That said, I do think they will continue to fight the ruling, but I also think its pointless.

It's not a absolute "cap" it's a minimum cap. Second, the 5K is per year minimum. It could be more. So 4 years is 20K minimum.