(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

The vast majority of players are overpaid now. They're pretty much interchangeable. Its only a handful. They may prefer cash to education and training, but they get quite a bit.

(08-09-2014 09:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  This reminds me a bit of the court "victory" of the USFL in the mid Eighties.

It is more significant and better than that three dollar award, but I don't see this decision "fundamentally altering college football as we know it" at all.

Nice to have my intuitive opinion about this confirmed by someone who knows what he's talking about, LOL.

(08-09-2014 10:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  The vast majority of players are overpaid now. They're pretty much interchangeable. Its only a handful. They may prefer cash to education and training, but they get quite a bit.

I agree, and this is a critical point because it relates to the judge's decision. The cap of $5,000 a year in licensing money will not have a practical impact on the vast majority of players, because they are essentially "faceless" and no video company like EA Sports will want to offer them more than a pittance for their likeness, if they will offer them anything at all.

But on the other hand, the handful of superstars, the Manzels and Famous Jameis and Clowneys, they are worth a LOT more than $5,000 a year. EA Sports would probably have been willing to pay Manzel several hundred thousand dollars to use his likeness in a video game this past year, so a superstar's earning power will be massively clipped by the cap the judge envisions.

So again, this a is a VERY friendly ruling to both video companies and the NCAA. They will essentially get the superstars for a pittance and not have to pay for "junk" players they don't want. And nothing about the fundamental structure of the sport is affected at all.

(08-09-2014 09:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

This reminds me a bit of the court "victory" of the USFL in the mid Eighties.

It is more significant and better than that three dollar award, but I don't see this decision "fundamentally altering college football as we know it" at all.

Exactly. The judge basically said that schools can't have an amateur system where a cash poor athlete is forced to borrow money to survive but can have one that prevents profit.

I've not gone all the way in the decision, (anyone wants to become a client and pay I will), but it looks like she accepted the argument from Bloom which was that the risk of fraudulent use of likeness to circumvent the caps on compensation was greater than the benefit to the players.

The players aren't quite interchangeable widgets but very few have significant economic value apart from the school they play for.

(08-09-2014 11:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 09:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  This reminds me a bit of the court "victory" of the USFL in the mid Eighties.

It is more significant and better than that three dollar award, but I don't see this decision "fundamentally altering college football as we know it" at all.

Nice to have my intuitive opinion about this confirmed by someone who knows what he's talking about, LOL.

Lol, I am not sure that I know what I am talking about, but that never stops me from giving an opinion.

But, I really don't see O'Bannon as a big deal, overall.

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

Maybe I'm reading too much into those words, but isn't she also implying that Title IX isn't a barrier to not extending full cost of attendance beyond FBS football and D-I men's basketball players? If that were the case, and if it would actually hold up, I would count that as a big win for the schools.

(08-09-2014 05:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

Maybe I'm reading too much into those words, but isn't she also implying that Title IX isn't a barrier to not extending full cost of attendance beyond FBS football and D-I men's basketball players? If that were the case, and if it would actually hold up, I would count that as a big win for the schools.

She is saying Title IX is not a barrier to compensating the football and basketball players. That doesn't mean it is a barrier to getting sued if you don't compensate females equally. Reality is that they will have to provide similar benefits to female athletes. They lose that battle politically even if they win in lawsuits. And they really don't want those lawsuits.

(08-09-2014 11:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 09:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

This reminds me a bit of the court "victory" of the USFL in the mid Eighties.

It is more significant and better than that three dollar award, but I don't see this decision "fundamentally altering college football as we know it" at all.

Exactly. The judge basically said that schools can't have an amateur system where a cash poor athlete is forced to borrow money to survive but can have one that prevents profit.

I've not gone all the way in the decision, (anyone wants to become a client and pay I will), but it looks like she accepted the argument from Bloom which was that the risk of fraudulent use of likeness to circumvent the caps on compensation was greater than the benefit to the players.

The players aren't quite interchangeable widgets but very few have significant economic value apart from the school they play for.

The way I read her ruling she has all the likeness money going into a common pool to be divided equally by the players on that years team. Johnny Football makes the same as the left guard.

(08-09-2014 08:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The way I read her ruling she has all the likeness money going into a common pool to be divided equally by the players on that years team. Johnny Football makes the same as the left guard.

I didn't quite read it that way. She said the NCAA can have a rule that requires schools to pay the same amount to all players in the same recruiting class, but it doesn't have to have such a rule, so that it is possible that a school could allocate different amounts to different players, if it wants to.

(08-09-2014 08:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 08:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The way I read her ruling she has all the likeness money going into a common pool to be divided equally by the players on that years team. Johnny Football makes the same as the left guard.

I didn't quite read it that way. She said the NCAA can have a rule that requires schools to pay the same amount to all players in the same recruiting class, but it doesn't have to have such a rule, so that it is possible that a school could allocate different amounts to different players, if it wants to.

Some of the union discussion was that athletes could negotiate on this collectively, or if they didn't unionize, separately.

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

I think you guys are reading this wrong. The judge did not impose a $5K a year cap. In fact, she did not impose a cap at all. What she said was that the NCAA could impose a cap if it wishes, but if it so chooses that cap can not be lower than $5K per year per player. There is no reason that the NCAA can't choose a higher cap, or no cap at all.

So the next question is: what will the NCAA choose to do, and is this an autonomy question (I believe it is)?

(08-10-2014 08:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

I think you guys are reading this wrong. The judge did not impose a $5K a year cap. In fact, she did not impose a cap at all. What she said was that the NCAA could impose a cap if it wishes, but if it so chooses that cap can not be lower than $5K per year per player. There is no reason that the NCAA can't choose a higher cap, or no cap at all.

So the next question is: what will the NCAA choose to do, and is this an autonomy question (I believe it is)?

FWIW, I did not mean to say the judge imposed a $5,000 'cap' in the sense of that being the most the NCAA could offer players. As you note, that number is a floor, not a ceiling. Poor choice of a word on my part.

I was just going on the assumption that since the NCAA would rather these players get nothing, then the judge's floor will be what the NCAA ratifies as its ceiling. Seems like a safe assumption to me but I guess who really knows?

(08-10-2014 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 08:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

I think you guys are reading this wrong. The judge did not impose a $5K a year cap. In fact, she did not impose a cap at all. What she said was that the NCAA could impose a cap if it wishes, but if it so chooses that cap can not be lower than $5K per year per player. There is no reason that the NCAA can't choose a higher cap, or no cap at all.

So the next question is: what will the NCAA choose to do, and is this an autonomy question (I believe it is)?

FWIW, I did not mean to say the judge imposed a $5,000 'cap' in the sense of that being the most the NCAA could offer players. As you note, that number is a floor, not a ceiling. Poor choice of a word on my part.

I was just going on the assumption that since the NCAA would rather these players get nothing, then the judge's floor will be what the NCAA ratifies as its ceiling. Seems like a safe assumption to me but I guess who really knows?

I'm not sure that will prove to be a valid assumption. First of all, the position of the NCAA up until now has included the opinions of schools who may no longer have a say in the matter. If the P5 view this as an autonomy matter, theirs is the only opinion that will count - especially since they have most of the athletes that somebody may be willing to pay for.

Another aspect is that the NCAA may have considered zero to be a more defensible argument to sustain the entire "amateur" model. Once that dam is broken, there's no telling what position the NCAA member schools will take. They may decide that you can't be a "little bit pregnant" and make it a free for all.

(08-10-2014 08:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure that will prove to be a valid assumption. First of all, the position of the NCAA up until now has included the opinions of schools who may no longer have a say in the matter. If the P5 view this as an autonomy matter, theirs is the only opinion that will count - especially since they have most of the athletes that somebody may be willing to pay for.

Another aspect is that the NCAA may have considered zero to be a more defensible argument to sustain the entire "amateur" model. Once that dam is broken, there's no telling what position the NCAA member schools will take. They may decide that you can't be a "little bit pregnant" and make it a free for all.

If I recall correctly, during discovery, the O'Bannon plaintiffs only sought financial data from the 10 FBS leagues and no more than 3 non-FBS leagues.

The financial data that was part of the decision is based less than half of Division I leagues.

The $5k is the MINIMUM cap but I would assume that means the judge's belief is that the plaintiffs only established that the value of likeness generated that should be payable to athletes is not less than $490,000 per school.

The press has done a pathetic job of covering these cases because the Sun Belt is a defendant or at least a subpoenaed party in NCAA only cases in virtually all of the same cases as the SEC. This is NOT just P5 specific.

Remember draft one of autonomy required full NCAA vote for a non-P5 league to adopt. They were then reminded that in litigation there are 5 to 8 other conferences that equally have their necks on the line. That is why draft 2 allowed the FBS leagues to adopt and draft 3 was extended to all Division I (though in football tracking by FCS is problematic if the adopted legislation is applicable to head count sports because it is an equivalency sport in FCS).

As to Title IX there is no clear case that I am aware of but there are number of experts on this particular field of litigation who believe that a market driven difference in compensation is permissible under Title IX. Remember that a school that may be found compliant with Title IX that in excess of 100 males maybe on full ride because there are 98 head count slots and a number of full rides given in head count sports. While the number of females given a full scholarship may be half that number.

I believe before you see any appeal filed the defendants will seek administrative clarification.

Assigning value to likeness value is going to be problematic. The typical TV contract is signed before a Johnny Football arrives on campus and is then renewed after he leaves. Whatever value is assigned to likeness in negotiation is a sort of generic application projecting the value of an athlete not yet signed.

I don't believe a "free for all" can receive 41 votes in the new P5 council of schools and athletes.

Most of the 65 schools would be further behind in a free for all and presumably nearly half of the 15 student athletes voting will be females voting from sports that will never share in that largess.

If any of the 15 athletes are from baseball you can be assured those players will be unlikely free for all votes because anyone who has been around the various sports knows baseball players miss more class time than any football or basketball player, they put in as many or more hours of practice and training and they are mostly doing it on a partial scholarship. Enriching football and basketball is not going to be high priority.

It's official - the NCAA will appeal the ruling:

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med...non-ruling

(08-10-2014 09:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 08:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure that will prove to be a valid assumption. First of all, the position of the NCAA up until now has included the opinions of schools who may no longer have a say in the matter. If the P5 view this as an autonomy matter, theirs is the only opinion that will count - especially since they have most of the athletes that somebody may be willing to pay for.

Another aspect is that the NCAA may have considered zero to be a more defensible argument to sustain the entire "amateur" model. Once that dam is broken, there's no telling what position the NCAA member schools will take. They may decide that you can't be a "little bit pregnant" and make it a free for all.

If I recall correctly, during discovery, the O'Bannon plaintiffs only sought financial data from the 10 FBS leagues and no more than 3 non-FBS leagues.

The financial data that was part of the decision is based less than half of Division I leagues.

The $5k is the MINIMUM cap but I would assume that means the judge's belief is that the plaintiffs only established that the value of likeness generated that should be payable to athletes is not less than $490,000 per school.

The press has done a pathetic job of covering these cases because the Sun Belt is a defendant or at least a subpoenaed party in NCAA only cases in virtually all of the same cases as the SEC. This is NOT just P5 specific.

Remember draft one of autonomy required full NCAA vote for a non-P5 league to adopt. They were then reminded that in litigation there are 5 to 8 other conferences that equally have their necks on the line. That is why draft 2 allowed the FBS leagues to adopt and draft 3 was extended to all Division I (though in football tracking by FCS is problematic if the adopted legislation is applicable to head count sports because it is an equivalency sport in FCS).

As to Title IX there is no clear case that I am aware of but there are number of experts on this particular field of litigation who believe that a market driven difference in compensation is permissible under Title IX. Remember that a school that may be found compliant with Title IX that in excess of 100 males maybe on full ride because there are 98 head count slots and a number of full rides given in head count sports. While the number of females given a full scholarship may be half that number.

I believe before you see any appeal filed the defendants will seek administrative clarification.

Assigning value to likeness value is going to be problematic. The typical TV contract is signed before a Johnny Football arrives on campus and is then renewed after he leaves. Whatever value is assigned to likeness in negotiation is a sort of generic application projecting the value of an athlete not yet signed.

One of the 3 ways schools can prove Title IX compliance by proving they are meeting the needs. i.e. if more men want to play sports they can offer more. Noone is willing to defend that. Everyone tries to prove it by equality or growing women's opportunities. Noone is going to try to defend market driven differences if the money flows through the school. And no one wants to defend it. These schools are very politically correct. If there is some kind of joint fund it will not be bigger for men's basketball and football players.

Which will, of course, result in future lawsuits from those 2 groups saying they are under-compensated.

They won't, but if they really want to cut this stuff off in basketball, they need to make freshmen ineligible. The one and dones will have a choice of AAU, JC, minor leagues or Europe.

And this is just the first battle. The Kessler lawsuit could ultimately end college athletics. If the NCAA loses that one, non-rev sports will be dramatically cut and many schools will drop scholarships or athletics entirely.

(08-10-2014 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  They won't, but if they really want to cut this stuff off in basketball, they need to make freshmen ineligible. The one and dones will have a choice of AAU, JC, minor leagues or Europe.

And this is just the first battle. The Kessler lawsuit could ultimately end college athletics. If the NCAA loses that one, non-rev sports will be dramatically cut and many schools will drop scholarships or athletics entirely.

The NCAA powers are certifiably insane if they continue to permit scouting, giving video, or any other form of contact with leagues that don't permit 18 year olds to be drafted. Doesn't matter if the NFL never drafts an 18 or 19 year old they need to remove the restriction and if they refuse to they are going to continue to create hassles for the NCAA.

(08-10-2014 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  They won't, but if they really want to cut this stuff off in basketball, they need to make freshmen ineligible. The one and dones will have a choice of AAU, JC, minor leagues or Europe.

And this is just the first battle. The Kessler lawsuit could ultimately end college athletics. If the NCAA loses that one, non-rev sports will be dramatically cut and many schools will drop scholarships or athletics entirely.

If freshman ineligibility is a result of all this, it will have been worth it. In one fell swoop you could eliminate all the arbitrary rules about SAT scores and high school GPA's. Think how much money could be saved if you dismantle the whole clearinghouse apparatus.