CSNbbs

Lovely article that so nails the hypocrisy of the NCAA.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...testifies/

Holy crap.

Same day of testimony - Jim Delaney, Big Ten commish.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...a-big-ten/

(06-24-2014 09:07 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Holy crap.

Yeah, he really nails it, doesn't he?

I love how Emmert testifies that the image rights to college players are worthless. First off, the conferences and the NCAA have to players sign away those rights not only for themselves, but their heirs. Second, fine, they're worthless. Sell me the rights to Jameis Winston's image for a dollar and watch and see how much money I can make off of them within one year, from a standing start, with me having no business connections or experience in that area. Worthless, my eye.

Moreover, this is a bench trial, the judge gets to ask questions of those testifying and make her own decision. I think that the NCAA is not going to like the outcome.

Emmert's real skill here is being able to keep a straight face.

Add in this article from Grantland. Sonny Vaccaro referenced as well.

http://grantland.com/features/ncaa-amate...rk-emmert/

"This is the federal antitrust case that former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, and 19 other plaintiffs, have brought against the NCAA, arguing that they — and all current college athletes, and all the college athletes yet to come — have a right to profit from their names, images, and likenesses, and that their onetime status as college athletes does not mean that they surrendered their names, images, and likenesses to the NCAA so that the NCAA could make money off of their names, images, and likenesses in perpetuity.

In short, the plaintiffs are asking to be paid some of the ancillary money the NCAA made off of all the work they did playing their sports, a relatively simple idea for any human being who has ever actually earned a living, but, apparently, a concept so alien to the NCAA that just talking about it seems to get that organization concerned that it has contracted a virus from a distant world."

And for more about Sonny Vaccaro, if you don't know about him, here are the two articles linked in the Grantland article above:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazi...wanted=all

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...ts/308643/

The lede from that second link:

"“I’m not hiding,” Sonny Vaccaro told a closed hearing at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., in 2001. “We want to put our materials on the bodies of your athletes, and the best way to do that is buy your school. Or buy your coach.”

Vaccaro’s audience, the members of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, bristled. These were eminent reformers—among them the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, two former heads of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and several university presidents and chancellors. The Knight Foundation, a nonprofit that takes an interest in college athletics as part of its concern with civic life, had tasked them with saving college sports from runaway commercialism as embodied by the likes of Vaccaro, who, since signing his pioneering shoe contract with Michael Jordan in 1984, had built sponsorship empires successively at Nike, Adidas, and Reebok. Not all the members could hide their scorn for the “sneaker pimp” of schoolyard hustle, who boasted of writing checks for millions to everybody in higher education.

“Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

Vaccaro did not blink. “They shouldn’t, sir,” he replied. “You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir,” Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, “but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”

Wow. Think they liked hearing that?

I'm all for getting the corporations/ads out of college sports. I'd also be on board if any money made had to go back into the university as a whole (or charity) and not locker room waterfalls or rich old men's bank accounts. PLEASE get rid of any and all corruption.

If they start paying the players though, I'm done. I'll find something else to watch.

(06-27-2014 09:09 PM)legalblazer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm all for getting the corporations/ads out of college sports. I'd also be on board if any money made had to go back into the university as a whole (or charity) and not locker room waterfalls or rich old men's bank accounts. PLEASE get rid of any and all corruption.

If they start paying the players though, I'm done. I'll find something else to watch.

Why shouldn't players be able to earn income?

You might as well start looking then, because it is going to happen. They may not pay the players directly at first, but they will be able to earn money based on their fame. It will happen just as soon as this trial is over.

(06-24-2014 09:27 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]Add in this article from Grantland. Sonny Vaccaro referenced as well.

http://grantland.com/features/ncaa-amate...rk-emmert/

"This is the federal antitrust case that former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, and 19 other plaintiffs, have brought against the NCAA, arguing that they — and all current college athletes, and all the college athletes yet to come — have a right to profit from their names, images, and likenesses, and that their onetime status as college athletes does not mean that they surrendered their names, images, and likenesses to the NCAA so that the NCAA could make money off of their names, images, and likenesses in perpetuity.

In short, the plaintiffs are asking to be paid some of the ancillary money the NCAA made off of all the work they did playing their sports, a relatively simple idea for any human being who has ever actually earned a living, but, apparently, a concept so alien to the NCAA that just talking about it seems to get that organization concerned that it has contracted a virus from a distant world."

And for more about Sonny Vaccaro, if you don't know about him, here are the two articles linked in the Grantland article above:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazi...wanted=all

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...ts/308643/

The lede from that second link:

"“I’m not hiding,” Sonny Vaccaro told a closed hearing at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., in 2001. “We want to put our materials on the bodies of your athletes, and the best way to do that is buy your school. Or buy your coach.”

How to Fix College Sports Vaccaro’s audience, the members of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, bristled. These were eminent reformers—among them the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, two former heads of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and several university presidents and chancellors. The Knight Foundation, a nonprofit that takes an interest in college athletics as part of its concern with civic life, had tasked them with saving college sports from runaway commercialism as embodied by the likes of Vaccaro, who, since signing his pioneering shoe contract with Michael Jordan in 1984, had built sponsorship empires successively at Nike, Adidas, and Reebok. Not all the members could hide their scorn for the “sneaker pimp” of schoolyard hustle, who boasted of writing checks for millions to everybody in higher education.

“Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

Vaccaro did not blink. “They shouldn’t, sir,” he replied. “You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir,” Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, “but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”

Wow. Think they liked hearing that?

Money doesn't cause corruption, it exposes it.

Money, like guns, doesn't DO anything to people. It is what PEOPLE do with it that causes problems.

This whole mess started with the simple quest to provide some amount of "pocket money" for the athletes whose work makes so much income for university athletics. The establishment's stonewalling against any such provision has pushed the movement into the present state of affairs. As is often said "There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come". The debate has now shifted to how much to provide and to whom to provide it.

If the women's bowling team can get endorsements for bowling balls and shoes, then so be it. Amateur athletics died a long time ago. This trial isn't the death of it. It's been gone a long time. Let the players earn some money. It's called capitalism.

Yeah, if you didn't want to let the NCAA use you to enrich itself, you should have signed with the other college football cartel.

No, wait...

The NCAA trying to pass itself off as a non-profit while enriching everyone concerned except the people sweating and getting hurt out on the field is indefensible.

How long ago did you stop watching the Olympics? Those amateurs get paid, and amazingly, it wasn't the end of amateur Olympic sports.

I'm kinda with legal blazer here. This isn't as cut and dry as people want to try and make it. The schools these guys play for are worth more than the players themselves. If Jameis Winston played last year for an arena team, do you think anybody would know who he is? Do you think people would have stopped watching fsu? The schools sell merchandise with the school logo on them. That's what the fans are truly supporting.

If the players win this case, I'm fine with it in a couple of situations. You can earn cash and have it put in an account that you can't use until graduation, or your earnings all become taxable.(including this scholarship that so many feel isn't worth ****)

I think big time reform is needed. I don't think paying the players directly is the answer. 4 year scholarships. The ability to transfer once without being penalized. No restrictions on food. Better medical care. Things like that would be more useful in my opinion. The amount of money in college athletics is nuts these days. It needs to be used on the appropriate things.

Snarky snark snark...

This board has devolved into the disfunctional logic free zone. If someone makes a point, ignore it and support that with obligatory rhetoric.

I pointed out two examples of alternative pay for play options. So, it isn't a monopoly/cartel or whatever other derogatory name you want to give it. The problem is they are inferior for highlighting one's awesomeness to NFL scouts and getting money bags delivered to you uncle's glovebox by people whose self confidence is based solely on how well team x does against team y.

Times 3 or 4 now ... Get rid of the corruption don't surrender to it.

Watching this reminded me of the NCAA.

As far as taxing the scholarship as income, that means that the university is on the hook for it all since they are the only ones getting any of the money for tuition, lab fees, books, meals, room, etc. Taxes should be on the ones who actually receive the money and that is not the athlete.

If a person's employer paid to the employee's mortgage company, a restaurant for one meal three times a day, a single bed in a local motel, books related to the job, etc., does anyone think all should be taxable to the employee who never saw any of the money, but you get to do all the work?

You do understand under the tax code that would all be taxable income, correct? Technically, if you mow your neighbors lawn in exchange for him washing your car, that is taxable. The students get the scholarship, whether they see the money or not. If you win a $100,000 car, do you think you don't get taxed on that too?

(06-29-2014 06:52 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]You do understand under the tax code that would all be taxable income, correct? Technically, if you mow your neighbors lawn in exchange for him washing your car, that is taxable. The students get the scholarship, whether they see the money or not. If you win a $100,000 car, do you think you don't get taxed on that too?

You so understand that if the university GIVES you a degree, than you are receiving something quid pro quo. As long as they only provide an opportunity on a yearly basis that can be revoked at the pleasure of the sport's HC, than you have not received anything taxable. Only the school's administration has actually received any money. In your example, one receives a service in exchange for a service rendered. The university doesn't GIVE the athlete anything, but they profit mightily from the games they play even if the athlete winds up being one of the 40 to 75 cut from the scholarship list over 5 years.

UAB will run you ~18K a year, soup to nuts, and a lot of students have to come up with a way to pay that who don't play football.

The university gives you a future. Are you freaking kidding me? And I've said that scholarships should be good for four years, the amount of people that are run off are not as high as you try to make it out to be.