CSNbbs

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-argument

Quote:A federal judge on Monday denied one of the NCAA's attempts to redefine or delay the Ed O'Bannon trial over the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses.

The NCAA asked U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to reconsider her decision that the NCAA could not use providing financial support to women's sports and non-revenue men's sports as a reason to prohibit football and men's basketball players from being paid. That argument will remain prohibited for use by the NCAA if the O'Bannon case goes to trial as scheduled on June 9.

Quote:The NCAA had submitted in the case declarations by university administrators, athletic directors and conference leaders contending that they understand Title IX to mean they must provide athletic opportunities in men's and women's sports as features of an integrated college educational offering rather than as different products.

“But these administrators' understanding of Title IX has no bearing on whether Division I men's football and basketball recruits are consumers in the same market as other college-bound students,” Wilken wrote Monday. “Furthermore, the declarations articulate a questionable understanding of Title IX -- one that the NCAA itself has not endorsed in this case. For all of these reasons, the declarations are not sufficient to support an inference that the relevant market includes more than just Division I men's football and basketball players.”

So one of the key arguments the NCAA has always used to defend the amateurism model has effectively been removed. Keep in mind that this does not negate Title IX, just that the NCAA and the universities who have been limiting the players to only the value of the scholarships have been using Title IX as a crutch to justify not providing more compensation.

The NCAA's response:

Quote:"It is core to the NCAA and its member institutions that schools offer a broad base of sports, for women and men, regardless of whether those sports generate more revenue than they cost to support," Remy said. "The NCAA will continue to fight against any rule that allows schools to pay men's basketball and football players at the expense of providing college opportunities for hundreds of thousands of male and female student-athletes.”

(05-12-2014 03:24 PM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-argument

Quote:A federal judge on Monday denied one of the NCAA's attempts to redefine or delay the Ed O'Bannon trial over the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses.

The NCAA asked U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to reconsider her decision that the NCAA could not use providing financial support to women's sports and non-revenue men's sports as a reason to prohibit football and men's basketball players from being paid. That argument will remain prohibited for use by the NCAA if the O'Bannon case goes to trial as scheduled on June 9.

Quote:The NCAA had submitted in the case declarations by university administrators, athletic directors and conference leaders contending that they understand Title IX to mean they must provide athletic opportunities in men's and women's sports as features of an integrated college educational offering rather than as different products.

“But these administrators' understanding of Title IX has no bearing on whether Division I men's football and basketball recruits are consumers in the same market as other college-bound students,” Wilken wrote Monday. “Furthermore, the declarations articulate a questionable understanding of Title IX -- one that the NCAA itself has not endorsed in this case. For all of these reasons, the declarations are not sufficient to support an inference that the relevant market includes more than just Division I men's football and basketball players.”

So one of the key arguments the NCAA has always used to defend the amateurism model has effectively been removed. Keep in mind that this does not negate Title IX, just that the NCAA and the universities who have been limiting the players to only the value of the scholarships have been using Title IX as a crutch to justify not providing more compensation.

The NCAA's response:

Quote:"It is core to the NCAA and its member institutions that schools offer a broad base of sports, for women and men, regardless of whether those sports generate more revenue than they cost to support," Remy said. "The NCAA will continue to fight against any rule that allows schools to pay men's basketball and football players at the expense of providing college opportunities for hundreds of thousands of male and female student-athletes.”

That was an excuse (and I don't say that in a derogatory manner-as its a real issue), but not a legal argument. Judge's ruling means nothing.

Without reading all of the filings, I would tend to agree with the judge. It strikes me that payment for the use of likenesses does not change the balance of the educational experiences offered to men's and women's teams any more than the salaries of the head coaches. The Title IX issue does provide a far more compelling argument for the NCAA, though, in the Northwestern NLRB case.

This may not have done anything to Title IX in theory, but I believe in practice this is a major blow if it stands.

I agree this is a blow to the NCAAs arguments. But their attempted use of Title IX has always been an excuse--basically, "you can't let group A get more because then we will have to give group B more"--which of course really has nothing to do with whether group A should be getting more than they do currently.

(05-13-2014 07:52 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ]I agree this is a blow to the NCAAs arguments. But their attempted use of Title IX has always been an excuse--basically, "you can't let group A get more because then we will have to give group B more"--which of course really has nothing to do with whether group A should be getting more than they do currently.

If I understand correctly, the Judge's reasoning is that the schools would not have to give others more to match. The scholarships and related assistance for participation in sports is the educational experience covered by Title IX. Revenue derived from use of likenesses, etc., is not part of the educational experience that must be kept equal.

If the NLRB ruling stands, though, it would mean that participation in revenue sports is not an educational experience at all - it's a job, and would arguably no longer be within the scope of Title IX.

(05-13-2014 08:05 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2014 07:52 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ]I agree this is a blow to the NCAAs arguments. But their attempted use of Title IX has always been an excuse--basically, "you can't let group A get more because then we will have to give group B more"--which of course really has nothing to do with whether group A should be getting more than they do currently.

If I understand correctly, the Judge's reasoning is that the schools would not have to give others more to match. The scholarships and related assistance for participation in sports is the educational experience covered by Title IX. Revenue derived from use of likenesses, etc., is not part of the educational experience that must be kept equal.

If the NLRB ruling stands, though, it would mean that participation in revenue sports is not an educational experience at all - it's a job, and would arguably no longer be within the scope of Title IX.

I interpreted it as Tbringer did, that the schools are saying that they cannot pay players in revenue sports because they can't afford to pay players in non-revenue sports. The judge's ruling is that the two markets are somewhat separate, but that support of the second market isn't justification for not paying the first market.

However, I would also agree that the likeness issue has merit. Why couldn't the schools justify paying players as they appear on TV? Even the track teams at the highest level get on TV once in a while.