(06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
This part is amazing to me:
Astonishingly, an organization that tells us to think of it as “a marching band celebrating student-athletes in everything they do” did not call a single … wait for it … student-athlete. Two of the NCAA’s four pre-competitive justifications for prohibiting compensation are that consumer demand of college sports is dependent on maintaining amateurism and that amateurism rules promote an integration of academics and athletics. Who could possibly be more qualified to speak to the merits of amateurism than a successful former amateur athlete?
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
(06-27-2014 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
This part is amazing to me:
Astonishingly, an organization that tells us to think of it as “a marching band celebrating student-athletes in everything they do” did not call a single … wait for it … student-athlete. Two of the NCAA’s four pre-competitive justifications for prohibiting compensation are that consumer demand of college sports is dependent on maintaining amateurism and that amateurism rules promote an integration of academics and athletics. Who could possibly be more qualified to speak to the merits of amateurism than a successful former amateur athlete?
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
In the NCAA's defense on that subject, the certification of the class that included SA's basically prevented that from happening.
Quote:In an interview after proceedings closed on Wednesday, NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said “technical issues” played a factor in that decision. “We actually had a number of [current] student-athlete representatives that were prepared to testify,” he said. However, once Wilken certified any FBS football or Division I basketball player to appear in game footage since 2005 as a class-action plaintiff, Remy said court rules prohibited NCAA attorneys from contacting them. That ruled out Mariota.
(06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
Don't be convinced by sportswriters they know what the results will be. Mandel is one of the few who is even good at sportswriting.
I'm not a lawyer, but its obvious a lot of what he is suggesting would be limited by the judge as it would be irrelevant. She's also been holding them to a pretty structured trial length.
The only thing that's certain is your last sentence. Whoever loses will appeal. If Obannon's side gets a partial victory, both sides will probably appeal.
(06-27-2014 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
Don't be convinced by sportswriters they know what the results will be. Mandel is one of the few who is even good at sportswriting.
I'm not a lawyer, but its obvious a lot of what he is suggesting would be limited by the judge as it would be irrelevant. She's also been holding them to a pretty structured trial length.
The only thing that's certain is your last sentence. Whoever loses will appeal. If Obannon's side gets a partial victory, both sides will probably appeal.
OK. Here's a paper on the subject from a legal expert. Granted, this was done before the trial, but the case is still the same.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a...wnload=yes
I didn't have to read Mandel's article to believe the NCAA would lose. They have been very poorly presenting their case the whole trial.
(06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
It will drag on, or the politicians will step in. In which case the real circus will begin.
I think she said her decision would be issued the first week of August.
(06-27-2014 11:04 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
It will drag on, or the politicians will step in. In which case the real circus will begin.
I agree. That's exactly where I think this is eventually headed.
(06-27-2014 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
Don't be convinced by sportswriters they know what the results will be. Mandel is one of the few who is even good at sportswriting.
I'm not a lawyer, but its obvious a lot of what he is suggesting would be limited by the judge as it would be irrelevant. She's also been holding them to a pretty structured trial length.
The only thing that's certain is your last sentence. Whoever loses will appeal. If Obannon's side gets a partial victory, both sides will probably appeal.
To be fair, the NCAA argued the case the way it did for a reason. This is a judge trial. At the beginning, the judge sent written instructions to the participants indicating how she saw the current law and how it would be applied to the case.
The facts are not really in dispute. The players are claiming that the NCAA and P5 are colluding to limit the value of a scholarship. There is no doubt that is occurring. You can go to the NCAA website and download the NCAA manual which would give you written and public proof that the NCAA and P5 have done what they are being accused of.
Thus, the NCAA defense is about WHY collusion to limit the value of athletic scholarship could actually be legal. The judge has given the NCAA a road map describing the things they must prove that their collusion is not illegal. According to the judges research, the NCAA must prove that limiting the scholarship value creates a competitive balance and that limiting the value of scholarships increases the value of college football. If limiting the value of a scholarship does create a competitive balance and makes college football more valuable, then the NCAA must also prove that these goals could not be accomplished though some less restrictive means. The plantiffs must prove the exact opposite. The testimony we have heard this week was entirely about those points.
Frankly, when you look at the competitive differences between the P5 and the G5, its hard to see how the NCAA can win. There really isn't much of a competitive balance. The average Alabama recruit never considered UAB.
(06-27-2014 11:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
Don't be convinced by sportswriters they know what the results will be. Mandel is one of the few who is even good at sportswriting.
I'm not a lawyer, but its obvious a lot of what he is suggesting would be limited by the judge as it would be irrelevant. She's also been holding them to a pretty structured trial length.
The only thing that's certain is your last sentence. Whoever loses will appeal. If Obannon's side gets a partial victory, both sides will probably appeal.
To be fair, the NCAA argued the case the way it did for a reason. This is a judge trial. At the beginning, the judge sent written instructions to the participants indicating how she saw the current law and how it would be applied to the case.
The facts are not really in dispute. The players are claiming that the NCAA and P5 are colluding to limit the value of a scholarship. There is no doubt that is occurring. You can go to the NCAA website and download the NCAA manual which would give you written and public proof that the NCAA and P5 have done what they are being accused of.
Thus, the NCAA defense is about WHY collusion to limit the value of athletic scholarship could actually be legal. The judge has given the NCAA a road map describing the things they must prove that their collusion is not illegal. According to the judges research, the NCAA must prove that limiting the scholarship value creates a competitive balance and that limiting the value of scholarships increases the value of college football. If limiting the value of a scholarship does create a competitive balance and makes college football more valuable, then the NCAA must also prove that these goals could not be accomplished though some less restrictive means. The plantiffs must prove the exact opposite. The testimony we have heard this week was entirely about those points.
Frankly, when you look at the competitive differences between the P5 and the G5, its hard to see how the NCAA can win. There really isn't much of a competitive balance. The average Alabama recruit never considered UAB.
But if it changes, what about the difference between Alabama and Ole Miss or Alabama and South Carolina?
Or between the top 20-25 programs and the next 50?
Or between Tennessee and virtually everyone in the ACC?
It will change like free agency changed baseball. Unlike the NFL, baseball doesn't share local revenues. Cincinnati, Pittsburg and Kansas City were the top teams in the 70s. Its not a coincidence their successes have been few in the last 30 years. The NCAA will be the same. The gap between the very top financially and the next tier will significantly widen.
(06-27-2014 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 11:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
Don't be convinced by sportswriters they know what the results will be. Mandel is one of the few who is even good at sportswriting.
I'm not a lawyer, but its obvious a lot of what he is suggesting would be limited by the judge as it would be irrelevant. She's also been holding them to a pretty structured trial length.
The only thing that's certain is your last sentence. Whoever loses will appeal. If Obannon's side gets a partial victory, both sides will probably appeal.
To be fair, the NCAA argued the case the way it did for a reason. This is a judge trial. At the beginning, the judge sent written instructions to the participants indicating how she saw the current law and how it would be applied to the case.
The facts are not really in dispute. The players are claiming that the NCAA and P5 are colluding to limit the value of a scholarship. There is no doubt that is occurring. You can go to the NCAA website and download the NCAA manual which would give you written and public proof that the NCAA and P5 have done what they are being accused of.
Thus, the NCAA defense is about WHY collusion to limit the value of athletic scholarship could actually be legal. The judge has given the NCAA a road map describing the things they must prove that their collusion is not illegal. According to the judges research, the NCAA must prove that limiting the scholarship value creates a competitive balance and that limiting the value of scholarships increases the value of college football. If limiting the value of a scholarship does create a competitive balance and makes college football more valuable, then the NCAA must also prove that these goals could not be accomplished though some less restrictive means. The plantiffs must prove the exact opposite. The testimony we have heard this week was entirely about those points.
Frankly, when you look at the competitive differences between the P5 and the G5, its hard to see how the NCAA can win. There really isn't much of a competitive balance. The average Alabama recruit never considered UAB.
But if it changes, what about the difference between Alabama and Ole Miss or Alabama and South Carolina?
Or between the top 20-25 programs and the next 50?
Or between Tennessee and virtually everyone in the ACC?
It will change like free agency changed baseball. Unlike the NFL, baseball doesn't share local revenues. Cincinnati, Pittsburg and Kansas City were the top teams in the 70s. Its not a coincidence their successes have been few in the last 30 years. The NCAA will be the same. The gap between the very top financially and the next tier will significantly widen.
Those gaps exist today. Is Ole Miss really competitive with Alabama? There are really only about 10-20 schools that can realistically win a national championship. Frankly, college football has gone out of its way to make football less competitive (things like "AQ" and 7 and 8 game home schedules for some teams while others only have 5 home games).
Its easy to argue that giving every conference winner an AQ into the playoffs would do more to equalize the on the field competition than limiting the value of a scholarship ever would.
I still think the only way to save the current model would be an anti-trust exemption along with some level of governmental regulation. The governmental regulation would be there as a protection to player welfare and to insure reasonable access to all for the playoff. Essentially, the idea would be to return the sport to its academically based competitive roots. Monetarily, the conferences would be free to earn (and keep) all their TV and bowl revenue for themselves. The playoff revenue would split evenly.
(06-27-2014 12:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 11:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
Don't be convinced by sportswriters they know what the results will be. Mandel is one of the few who is even good at sportswriting.
I'm not a lawyer, but its obvious a lot of what he is suggesting would be limited by the judge as it would be irrelevant. She's also been holding them to a pretty structured trial length.
The only thing that's certain is your last sentence. Whoever loses will appeal. If Obannon's side gets a partial victory, both sides will probably appeal.
To be fair, the NCAA argued the case the way it did for a reason. This is a judge trial. At the beginning, the judge sent written instructions to the participants indicating how she saw the current law and how it would be applied to the case.
The facts are not really in dispute. The players are claiming that the NCAA and P5 are colluding to limit the value of a scholarship. There is no doubt that is occurring. You can go to the NCAA website and download the NCAA manual which would give you written and public proof that the NCAA and P5 have done what they are being accused of.
Thus, the NCAA defense is about WHY collusion to limit the value of athletic scholarship could actually be legal. The judge has given the NCAA a road map describing the things they must prove that their collusion is not illegal. According to the judges research, the NCAA must prove that limiting the scholarship value creates a competitive balance and that limiting the value of scholarships increases the value of college football. If limiting the value of a scholarship does create a competitive balance and makes college football more valuable, then the NCAA must also prove that these goals could not be accomplished though some less restrictive means. The plantiffs must prove the exact opposite. The testimony we have heard this week was entirely about those points.
Frankly, when you look at the competitive differences between the P5 and the G5, its hard to see how the NCAA can win. There really isn't much of a competitive balance. The average Alabama recruit never considered UAB.
But if it changes, what about the difference between Alabama and Ole Miss or Alabama and South Carolina?
Or between the top 20-25 programs and the next 50?
Or between Tennessee and virtually everyone in the ACC?
It will change like free agency changed baseball. Unlike the NFL, baseball doesn't share local revenues. Cincinnati, Pittsburg and Kansas City were the top teams in the 70s. Its not a coincidence their successes have been few in the last 30 years. The NCAA will be the same. The gap between the very top financially and the next tier will significantly widen.
Those gaps exist today. Is Ole Miss really competitive with Alabama? There are really only about 10-20 schools that can realistically win a national championship. Frankly, college football has gone out of its way to make football less competitive (things like "AQ" and 7 and 8 game home schedules for some teams while others only have 5 home games).
Its easy to argue that giving every conference winner an AQ into the playoffs would do more to equalize the on the field competition than limiting the value of a scholarship ever would.
I still think the only way to save the current model would be an anti-trust exemption along with some level of governmental regulation. The governmental regulation would be there as a protection to player welfare and to insure reasonable access to all for the playoff. Essentially, the idea would be to return the sport to its academically based competitive roots. Monetarily, the conferences would be free to earn (and keep) all their TV and bowl revenue for themselves. The playoff revenue would split evenly.
Look at the Big 12 champs the last few years:
2013 Baylor
2012 Kansas St.
2011 Oklahoma St.
2010 Oklahoma (and TCU ended up #2 in the country and won the Rose while in the MWC)
2009 Texas
Yes, the same 15-20 schools will win the MNC, but we are trending towards more competitive within the P5 with the increased TV exposure. I do agree the P5 is trying to increase the gap between them and the G5.
(06-27-2014 10:52 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
This part is amazing to me:
Astonishingly, an organization that tells us to think of it as “a marching band celebrating student-athletes in everything they do” did not call a single … wait for it … student-athlete. Two of the NCAA’s four pre-competitive justifications for prohibiting compensation are that consumer demand of college sports is dependent on maintaining amateurism and that amateurism rules promote an integration of academics and athletics. Who could possibly be more qualified to speak to the merits of amateurism than a successful former amateur athlete?
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
In the NCAA's defense on that subject, the certification of the class that included SA's basically prevented that from happening.
Quote:In an interview after proceedings closed on Wednesday, NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said “technical issues” played a factor in that decision. “We actually had a number of [current] student-athlete representatives that were prepared to testify,” he said. However, once Wilken certified any FBS football or Division I basketball player to appear in game footage since 2005 as a class-action plaintiff, Remy said court rules prohibited NCAA attorneys from contacting them. That ruled out Mariota.
While they aren't a party to this particular case, I'm curious how a ruling in favor of the athletes would affect other athletes in the future. While the money is obviously much smaller, FCS football players, players in other D-I sports, and even high school players play in televised contests which are generating revenue for somebody. Why should they not be compensated for the use of their images as well?
(06-27-2014 12:41 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:52 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: [ -> ]And the NCAA is almost assuredly going to lose.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
They will appeal IMHO. And this will drag on all the way to the USSC.
This part is amazing to me:
Astonishingly, an organization that tells us to think of it as “a marching band celebrating student-athletes in everything they do” did not call a single … wait for it … student-athlete. Two of the NCAA’s four pre-competitive justifications for prohibiting compensation are that consumer demand of college sports is dependent on maintaining amateurism and that amateurism rules promote an integration of academics and athletics. Who could possibly be more qualified to speak to the merits of amateurism than a successful former amateur athlete?
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...nnon-trial
In the NCAA's defense on that subject, the certification of the class that included SA's basically prevented that from happening.
Quote:In an interview after proceedings closed on Wednesday, NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said “technical issues” played a factor in that decision. “We actually had a number of [current] student-athlete representatives that were prepared to testify,” he said. However, once Wilken certified any FBS football or Division I basketball player to appear in game footage since 2005 as a class-action plaintiff, Remy said court rules prohibited NCAA attorneys from contacting them. That ruled out Mariota.
While they aren't a party to this particular case, I'm curious how a ruling in favor of the athletes would affect other athletes in the future. While the money is obviously much smaller, FCS football players, players in other D-I sports, and even high school players play in televised contests which are generating revenue for somebody. Why should they not be compensated for the use of their images as well?
Because the use of likenesses in TV broadcasts is seldom compensated. The pros don't pay based on who gets on TV, or how big the TV broadcast is. They get paid a salary to be on the team. In the end, I don't think the plaintiffs will end up getting a share of the TV money, but I do think the avenue to allow players to profit from their own likenesses through other means (sponsorships, appearance fees, etc.) will be opened.
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw · 6m
NCAA Lewis says football players can go to Arena Football League or Canadian Football League instead of college. Me: age limits in AFL/CFL?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm...I looked it up and you need to be 18 to be in the Arena League and really no minumum for the CFL (but keep in mind max 20 of international players).
Does this help the case of the NCAA?
NCAA filed an injunction today that prohibits the NCAA from barring trust funds being set up that allow SA's to get compensation for likenesses, among other things:
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 9m
New proposed injunction from O'Bannon plaintiffs includes idea of trust fund payable upon end of eligibility or graduation, whichever 1st
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 7m
New proposed injunction would prevent NCAA from including NIL compensation in award of a scholarship that goes to full cost of attendance
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 3m
New proposed injunction from O'Bannon plaintiffs would bar NCAA from prohibiting pay for 3rd-party endorsements, subject to school approval
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 4m
New proposed injunction from O'Bannon plaintiffs would bar NCAA from including NIL payments in the award of a schol and ed-related expenses
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 3m
O'Bannon planitiffs proposed injunction would bar NCAA from awarding 4yr schol in exchange for players' NIL rights.
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 1m
O'Bannon plaintiffs proposed injunction would bar schools and confs from awarding guaranteed athletic schols in exchange for NIL use
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 55s
O'Bannon plaintiffs' proposed injunctioj would bar schools and confs from awarding medical insurance in exchange for NIL use
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 28s
O'Bannon plaintiffs' proposed injunction would bar schools and confs from covering various expenses in exchange for NIL use
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 4s
O'Bannon plaintiffs' proposed injunction would bar NCAA from defining pay as including compensation for NIL use
Steve Berkowitz @ByBerkowitz · 2m
O'Bannon plaintiffs' new proposed injunction specifically mentions prospect of group licensing for use athletes' names, likenesses
McCann is well worth reading but he leans heavy to the players and has projected wrong several times (I was reading his blog before the big media companies had heard of him).
I think the judge is going to hand O'Bannon victory, the war is the appeal. We already have a circuit holding that the NCAA is reasonable in barring compensation for likeness so this will have a fair shot at being granted cert eventually.
(06-27-2014 02:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]McCann is well worth reading but he leans heavy to the players and has projected wrong several times (I was reading his blog before the big media companies had heard of him).
I think the judge is going to hand O'Bannon victory, the war is the appeal. We already have a circuit holding that the NCAA is reasonable in barring compensation for likeness so this will have a fair shot at being granted cert eventually.
Sponsorships, appearance fees and signatures are a real can of worms for a lot of reasons-boosters, agents, conflicts with school sponsorships (player insisting on wearing his Nikes at a school with Adidas sponsorship). TV at least could be distributed based on a formula.
If OBannon does win, the question is how far she goes. And even if he wins it all, there is still the negotiation to determine how it all works and how much anyone gets.