http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...itrust-law

The $5,000 cap is a small victory for the NCAA. However, the ruling allowing the P5 to set their own rules make this a very tricky situation. What stops the P5 or G5 from saying they want to allow their conference players to be even less restricted, giving a recruiting edge.

Any way ya slice it, this is a bumpy slide to college becoming a professional minor league.

This is what stuck out to me of the NCAA's expert witness:

“Although he opined that this restraint was lawful because it serves procompetitive purposes, he never denied that the NCAA restricts competition among its members for recruits,” Wilken wrote. “In fact, his own economics textbook specifically refers to the NCAA as a ‘cartel,' which he defined during his testimony as a ‘group of firms that impose a restraint.'”

Effectively, the current model of amateur athletics will either be incredibly reformed for preservation, or completely thrown out the window (at least in the long run). I believe we'll see conferences take one approach or the other, but change will certainly happen.

Any money given will not go over the cost to attend and this ruling will be over turned on appeal.

Once you go over so much you bring in uncle Sam into it wanting their cut for taxes. Do any of you think these schools want to see their players audited? Do any of the schools want a auditor asking the question of...if you are not "working" or working very limited hours in the summer how can you afford to drive a $30, 000 truck or car.

No they do not. On top of that do any of these schools want to take the chance a Auburn fan is the auditor question a bama player or a Mich St fan is the auditor that flags the Mich player or on and on? No they do not.


You will see it over turned because as long as a school does not put a players name on a jersey you are not making money off his likeness. If a school sells a #3 jersey and that happens to be the star player for that school...so what that number does not belong to that player. Many wore it before him and many will wear it after. That number belongs to the school...not the player. That's just one example.

What I think we will start to see is a trend of putting this back on the schools and less about the players. Wouldn't be surprised if by 3 years from now the name will disappear from the back of the Jersey. With the cap at $5,000 a lot of these players are going to lose money....

bet a large % are getting the 5+k pell grant that will end

But in the end this will NEVER be upheld when it reaches the Supreme court and it will end up there.

(08-08-2014 09:47 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Any money given will not go over the cost to attend and this ruling will be over turned on appeal.

Once you go over so much you bring in uncle Sam into it wanting their cut for taxes. Do any of you think these schools want to see their players audited? Do any of the schools want a auditor asking the question of...if you are not "working" or working very limited hours in the summer how can you afford to drive a $30, 000 truck or car.

No they do not. On top of that do any of these schools want to take the chance a Auburn fan is the auditor question a bama player or a Mich St fan is the auditor that flags the Mich player or on and on? No they do not.


You will see it over turned because as long as a school does not put a players name on a jersey you are not making money off his likeness. If a school sells a #3 jersey and that happens to be the star player for that school...so what that number does not belong to that player. Many wore it before him and many will wear it after. That number belongs to the school...not the player. That's just one example.

What I think we will start to see is a trend of putting this back on the schools and less about the players. Wouldn't be surprised if by 3 years from now the name will disappear from the back of the Jersey. With the cap at $5,000 a lot of these players are going to lose money....

bet a large % are getting the 5+k pell grant that will end

But in the end this will NEVER be upheld when it reaches the Supreme court and it will end up there.

If this goes to the Supreme Court ... the NCAA will be toast.... they can't spin Amateurism/scholarships when normal students can make whatever they want and still get a scholly. Also, there is no way in a court of law, that one can argue the schools do not profit off the players playing and winning the games. One could go straight to the conference and school tv rights deals as proof. The NCAA does not have a revenue sharing model membership wide.

(08-08-2014 10:24 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 09:47 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Any money given will not go over the cost to attend and this ruling will be over turned on appeal.

Once you go over so much you bring in uncle Sam into it wanting their cut for taxes. Do any of you think these schools want to see their players audited? Do any of the schools want a auditor asking the question of...if you are not "working" or working very limited hours in the summer how can you afford to drive a $30, 000 truck or car.

No they do not. On top of that do any of these schools want to take the chance a Auburn fan is the auditor question a bama player or a Mich St fan is the auditor that flags the Mich player or on and on? No they do not.


You will see it over turned because as long as a school does not put a players name on a jersey you are not making money off his likeness. If a school sells a #3 jersey and that happens to be the star player for that school...so what that number does not belong to that player. Many wore it before him and many will wear it after. That number belongs to the school...not the player. That's just one example.

What I think we will start to see is a trend of putting this back on the schools and less about the players. Wouldn't be surprised if by 3 years from now the name will disappear from the back of the Jersey. With the cap at $5,000 a lot of these players are going to lose money....

bet a large % are getting the 5+k pell grant that will end

But in the end this will NEVER be upheld when it reaches the Supreme court and it will end up there.

If this goes to the Supreme Court ... the NCAA will be toast.... they can't spin Amateurism/scholarships when normal students can make whatever they want and still get a scholly. Also, there is no way in a court of law, that one can argue the schools do not profit off the players playing and winning the games. One could go straight to the conference and school tv rights deals as proof. The NCAA does not have a revenue sharing model membership wide.

There's a very simple way to not use the players likeness in football..

helmets must be wore from the time a player enters the field and till he leaves. If a player needs to remove that helmet there will be a area at the end of the team box with a enclosed area for it.

No players names will be put on a jersey

player must sign a contract stating they agree to the fact their name will be called out on TV and expect no money from that.

Again just as it was years ago it will become about the schools and not the name on the back

Every dollar spent on a player will be put on the books and on and on

But when the crap hits the wall all a school will need to prove is the compensation each of these players receive is at least $7.25 a hour
minimum wage if they want to treat this as a "job"

In the end no one is forcing any of this players to step on the field or court and play. So a signed contract stating they agree to the term the school sets should be good enough. If they don't want to play...don't no one is forcing anyone.

This will get overturned on appeal because it not only affects D1 college players but also anyone that plays sports from peewee on down if a person can prove they are making money.

(08-08-2014 10:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 10:24 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 09:47 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Any money given will not go over the cost to attend and this ruling will be over turned on appeal.

Once you go over so much you bring in uncle Sam into it wanting their cut for taxes. Do any of you think these schools want to see their players audited? Do any of the schools want a auditor asking the question of...if you are not "working" or working very limited hours in the summer how can you afford to drive a $30, 000 truck or car.

No they do not. On top of that do any of these schools want to take the chance a Auburn fan is the auditor question a bama player or a Mich St fan is the auditor that flags the Mich player or on and on? No they do not.


You will see it over turned because as long as a school does not put a players name on a jersey you are not making money off his likeness. If a school sells a #3 jersey and that happens to be the star player for that school...so what that number does not belong to that player. Many wore it before him and many will wear it after. That number belongs to the school...not the player. That's just one example.

What I think we will start to see is a trend of putting this back on the schools and less about the players. Wouldn't be surprised if by 3 years from now the name will disappear from the back of the Jersey. With the cap at $5,000 a lot of these players are going to lose money....

bet a large % are getting the 5+k pell grant that will end

But in the end this will NEVER be upheld when it reaches the Supreme court and it will end up there.

If this goes to the Supreme Court ... the NCAA will be toast.... they can't spin Amateurism/scholarships when normal students can make whatever they want and still get a scholly. Also, there is no way in a court of law, that one can argue the schools do not profit off the players playing and winning the games. One could go straight to the conference and school tv rights deals as proof. The NCAA does not have a revenue sharing model membership wide.

There's a very simple way to not use the players likeness in football..

helmets must be wore from the time a player enters the field and till he leaves. If a player needs to remove that helmet there will be a area at the end of the team box with a enclosed area for it.

No players names will be put on a jersey

player must sign a contract stating they agree to the fact their name will be called out on TV and expect no money from that.

Again just as it was years ago it will become about the schools and not the name on the back

Every dollar spent on a player will be put on the books and on and on

But when the crap hits the wall all a school will need to prove is the compensation each of these players receive is at least $7.25 a hour
minimum wage if they want to treat this as a "job"

In the end no one is forcing any of this players to step on the field or court and play. So a signed contract stating they agree to the term the school sets should be good enough. If they don't want to play...don't no one is forcing anyone.

This will get overturned on appeal because it not only affects D1 college players but also anyone that plays sports from peewee on down if a person can prove they are making money.

Now that is one interesting point there.

@ Red

Forcing them to play is very dubious in concept for this. If they don't play they could GET NO SCHOLARSHIP. So no school. If you quit playing, you don't get that scholarship which would mean that to stay enrolled at the university of your choice you would have to get an academic scholarship or pay your own way through school.

@ Blue

LOL. I'm sorry man, but you walked into your local Student Book Store and saw a jersey currently on sale with #X you would automatically associate that #X with the player that wears that number on the field for your school. Not having names on the back might let you sleep at night but the reality is, fans know whose number it is. The star player knows its his number. Only way to somewhat offset that is use a number no one wears OR offer a numberless jersey.

It does not matter what a buyer assumes a number is not a likeness...

that number on the jersey belongs to the school not the player. At any time that number can be taken away and gave to someone else and unless it is retired (even then in some cases) that number will be wore by 10, 20, 30, 100 players.

Not only that but some numbers are used twice during the same year one on defense and on on offense that will never hold up in court it's not defined enough to be considered "likeness" and as I said no player owns the number he wears.

If not overturned congress will pass laws to get around this ruling too much is at stake for it not to...

but the student loan bubble will burst before this gets that far ...I say next 5 years. When that does most of what we know today will not be that way then. Not many of our schools can spend the money we do without the student fee. When that bubble burst so will the number of students and so will the millions our schools spends.

Also it will need to be proved that a school is actually making a profit off the likeness of these players...

do fans donate and buy ticket because of the player or school? I do because of the school. Most of us do not come close to breaking even without those donations and student fees. Even the big boys make 2 to 3x as much off ticket sales and donation as they do off TV money and jersey sales.

It will get overturned

It's also clear on pages 7-10 this judge clearly does not understand why FBS and FCS are different. Her understand of the facts is....

That FBS is the only game in town for these players because of the number of scholarships. And the higher scholarships offered at FBS is the reason it's better than FCS. What she does not understand it's not the number of scholarships. It's the talent level and nothing is stopping any of these players from accepting a scholarship to a FCS school. There they would get the same "package" as the FBS school....

so FBS is not the only game in town which I think this judge is basing part of her ruling on.

None of these other divisions,
associations, or professional leagues, however, provides the same
combination of goods and services offered by FBS football and
Division I basketball schools. Schools in FCS and Divisions II
and III all provide a lower number of scholarships than FBS
football and Division I basketball schools, which results in a
lower level of athletic competition. The National Intercollegiate
Athletic Association (NAIA), National Junior College Athletic
Association (NJCAA), National Christian Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCCAA), and United States Collegiate Athletic
Association (USCAA) likewise provide fewer scholarships and offer
a lower level of competition. What’s more, the schools in these
other divisions and associations are often smaller than FBS
football and Division I basketball schools, spend much less on
athletics, and may not even provide opportunities to attend a
four-year college. Id. 2824:14-:24, 2826:16-2827:7, 2829:17-
2830:12 (Stiroh). This is why, as Dr. Noll concluded, these other
schools do not compete with FBS football and Division I basketball
schools for recruits.

While she is correct that the other division's offer a lower level of athletic competition it's not because of the lower limit on scholarships. It's because the recruits want to play for the schools they go to. But it still doesn't change the fact...they have a choice and if they choose to go to FCS then that division would be the one with the highest athletic competition. It's the talent level not the scholarship limits that make the difference.

So this judge is mistaken in there are no other choices...

The longer I read this 90 page ruling it's clear this judge did not understand ....

at least at a common sense level but most of the time the law and common sense are not the same. I still think it gets overturned.

In the end it will come down to a new clause in the scholarship papers these kids sign...

I give up my rights to this school to use my likeness in exchange for the benefits I receive in education, and football. It's no more than a photographer making someone to sign a release for the photo they took.

(08-09-2014 10:18 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  It's also clear on pages 7-10 this judge clearly does not understand why FBS and FCS are different. Her understand of the facts is....

That FBS is the only game in town for these players because of the number of scholarships. And the higher scholarships offered at FBS is the reason it's better than FCS. What she does not understand it's not the number of scholarships. It's the talent level and nothing is stopping any of these players from accepting a scholarship to a FCS school. There they would get the same "package" as the FBS school....

so FBS is not the only game in town which I think this judge is basing part of her ruling on.

None of these other divisions,
associations, or professional leagues, however, provides the same
combination of goods and services offered by FBS football and
Division I basketball schools. Schools in FCS and Divisions II
and III all provide a lower number of scholarships than FBS
football and Division I basketball schools, which results in a
lower level of athletic competition. The National Intercollegiate
Athletic Association (NAIA), National Junior College Athletic
Association (NJCAA), National Christian Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCCAA), and United States Collegiate Athletic
Association (USCAA) likewise provide fewer scholarships and offer
a lower level of competition. What’s more, the schools in these
other divisions and associations are often smaller than FBS
football and Division I basketball schools, spend much less on
athletics, and may not even provide opportunities to attend a
four-year college. Id. 2824:14-:24, 2826:16-2827:7, 2829:17-
2830:12 (Stiroh). This is why, as Dr. Noll concluded, these other
schools do not compete with FBS football and Division I basketball
schools for recruits.

While she is correct that the other division's offer a lower level of athletic competition it's not because of the lower limit on scholarships. It's because the recruits want to play for the schools they go to. But it still doesn't change the fact...they have a choice and if they choose to go to FCS then that division would be the one with the highest athletic competition. It's the talent level not the scholarship limits that make the difference.

So this judge is mistaken in there are no other choices...

The longer I read this 90 page ruling it's clear this judge did not understand ....at least at a common sense level but most of the time the law and common sense are not the same. I still think it gets overturned.

I think this was the wrong judge to take this case. Didn't she ask questions early on about what FBS and BCS meant? She knew nothing about college athletics and it's history.

She asked a ton of what I would call uninformed question that the average fan would have a ideal of. In some cases a judge will ask questions just to make a clear record of the case...atty's also. I don't think this was one of those times, I think she was clueless on college sports. But it still wouldn't dismiss her from the case because as a judge she was ruling on the "law".

But common sense would say you need a clear understand of how something should work before you can apply the law. That should have been what the atty for the NCAA did....

from my limited reading of this ruling...they failed, bigtime, in doing that.

But I don't look at this as a bad thing for college sports (still think it gets overturned) I think this will change a few things in the war on getting cost down. And the arms race of TV contracts. If these players can win a case...

it should be a heck of lot easier for the G5 and FCS to get a larger piece of the pie with the threat of doing the same