http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...ons_sports

(06-19-2013 10:51 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...ons_sports

The problem is the NCAA wants it both ways. They want a open market competitive approach for the schools but to limit the athletes. They come across as corrupt and hypocritical. I would expect them to lose this case.

The NCAA doesn't want an open market for anyone. The NCAA's cash cow, the men's basketball tournament, exists because the NCAA has created a monopoly and forced all of the top teams to compete in it while sharing the money among everyone according to a formula dictated by the NCAA.

You want to start a basketball tournament to compete with the NCAA tournament? Maybe the top teams want to get together, hold their own tournament, and keep the money for themselves? Open market, free enterprise, right? Sorry, the NCAA won't allow that. The NCAA requires member schools whose teams are invited to the NCAA tournament to play in the NCAA tournament. They can't play in a competing tournament. We already know that's an antitrust problem, because the NIT sued the NCAA over it and forced the NCAA to buy the NIT to settle the case. But the rule still exists.

prior to that rule the nit was the premere post season tounament. schools would refuse the ncaa bid to go to the nit. the only way the ncaa could compete was to force that rule onto its member schools.

(06-19-2013 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The NCAA doesn't want an open market for anyone. The NCAA's cash cow, the men's basketball tournament, exists because the NCAA has created a monopoly and forced all of the top teams to compete in it while sharing the money among everyone according to a formula dictated by the NCAA.

You want to start a basketball tournament to compete with the NCAA tournament? Maybe the top teams want to get together, hold their own tournament, and keep the money for themselves? Open market, free enterprise, right? Sorry, the NCAA won't allow that. The NCAA requires member schools whose teams are invited to the NCAA tournament to play in the NCAA tournament. They can't play in a competing tournament. We already know that's an antitrust problem, because the NIT sued the NCAA over it and forced the NCAA to buy the NIT to settle the case. But the rule still exists.

And the P5 are talking about breaking away to end any sense of revenue sharing like they have already done in football. They will struggle to claim any credible greater good and will go down big.

(06-19-2013 12:48 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  prior to that rule the nit was the premere post season tounament. schools would refuse the ncaa bid to go to the nit. the only way the ncaa could compete was to force that rule onto its member schools.

Well, the NCAA was competing well enough. The NIT wasn't pushing the NCAA out of business. But the NCAA didn't like it when Marquette one year, and Kentucky another year, chose the NIT over the NCAA. So they put an end to that, and limited the NIT to teams that were not invited to the NCAA field.

The NCAA didn't want the competition; they wanted to monopolize all the best teams while spreading money around to all of D-I and, more importantly, skimming a massive chunk off the top to finance NCAA operations.

If you think that most of that CBS/TBS money goes back to the conferences, then think again. According to this article, about 60% of the annual NCAA revenue (80% of which is the CBS/TBS money for March Madness) goes back to the schools in one form or another (through various NCAA programs), and only 35% of that 60% is the tournament "units" distributed to the conferences of the participating schools.

Doing the math, the total "units" money received by all D-I conferences from March Madness is only about .35 x .60 ÷ .80, or a little more than 26% of the money the NCAA gets from CBS/TBS.

Not sure if anyone is aware, but former Cincinnati great Oscar Robertson is part of this lawsuit. He's a major player from what I understand. I also understand the NCAA has been using his image for years on all kinds of things. He's complained he never gave permission and has not made one red cent off any image used by the NCAA of Oscar. He's mad as a hornet over the subject and is demanding compensation.

I'm surprised there wasn't some kind of release or disclosure form ever circulated among all of that paperwork student athletes would have been forced to sign when starting their tenure as such. It's television, and other media for cripes sake. I mean, I can understand it not happening back in the Oscar Robertson days, but still not by O'Bannon?

Even if the NCAA wins, they lose...the schools don't need well-known/revered athletes and alumni hurting over this sort of thing. Makes for some bad PR.

looks like its going to go class action.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...it-vs-ncaa


Could this be the end of the NCAA as we know it if this prevails?

Let's face it: Ed O'Bannon only filed this lawsuit because his NBA career was a flop and he didn't make the millions he thought he was going to make playing pro basketball.

Funny thing is, even if his lawsuit is successful, he won't make much money off of it, only his lawyers will.

(06-22-2013 12:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: Ed O'Bannon only filed this lawsuit because his NBA career was a flop and he didn't make the millions he thought he was going to make playing pro basketball.

Funny thing is, even if his lawsuit is successful, he won't make much money off of it, only his lawyers will.

So you think people at the NCAA should get paid their salaries and benefits partially by selling video games with his likeness on it without paying him royalties? That's how the whole thing started btw.

(06-22-2013 02:49 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 12:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: Ed O'Bannon only filed this lawsuit because his NBA career was a flop and he didn't make the millions he thought he was going to make playing pro basketball.

Funny thing is, even if his lawsuit is successful, he won't make much money off of it, only his lawyers will.

So you think people at the NCAA should get paid their salaries and benefits partially by selling video games with his likeness on it without paying him royalties? That's how the whole thing started btw.

The whole thing started when his NBA career failed. He noticed that his likeness was being used in 1995 but didn't file suit until much later, after his lousy pro career ended and he had to become a car salesman after being pressured by his wife:

"There was an angry admonishment from Rosa -- "Get a job . . . or else" --".
http://www.webcitation.org/5xCB3dePi

This is similar to Sam Keller, the former Nebraska QB who sued the NCAA after failing to make the NFL.

FWIW, I do think college players should be paid royalties if private companies like EA Sports use their likenesses in their video games. But it's pretty clear these guys sued only after they failed to cash in like they thought they would in the pros.

This case is very similar to the case filed by Fred Dryer and other former NFL players against NFL Films for the use of their likenesses in NFL video games and the like. These players are opposing a proposed settlement because they aren't going to personally get a ton of money. As the Federal Judge overseeing the case said:

“It bears repeating: the individuals who originally brought this lawsuit and who now oppose the settlement rode into court on the banner of saving their downtrodden brethren, those who had played in the N.F.L. yet today were penniless and, often, suffering from injuries or illnesses directly related to their playing days,” Magnuson wrote when approving the settlement in April. “It is the height of disingenuousness for these same plaintiffs to now complain, like children denied dessert, that the settlement does not benefit enough the individuals who brought the lawsuit.”

We will probably see the same with O'Bannon et al.

(06-22-2013 05:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I do think college players should be paid royalties if private companies like EA Sports use their likenesses in their video games. But it's pretty clear these guys sued only after they failed to cash in like they thought they would in the pros.

So you're saying that O'Bannon might have let this slide if he had made $100 million in the NBA. That doesn't surprise you, does it? That's like saying, if a pickpocket steals your wallet with $500 in it, you might not chase him down the street if you're a millionaire.

(06-22-2013 11:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 05:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I do think college players should be paid royalties if private companies like EA Sports use their likenesses in their video games. But it's pretty clear these guys sued only after they failed to cash in like they thought they would in the pros.

So you're saying that O'Bannon might have let this slide if he had made $100 million in the NBA. That doesn't surprise you, does it? That's like saying, if a pickpocket steals your wallet with $500 in it, you might not chase him down the street if you're a millionaire.

No, it doesn't surprise me, i mentioned it because it's a point that has seemingly been lost in this discussion, which has focused on the alleged injustice to a "class" of players and, in the words of the federal judge overseeing the very similar NFL players lawsuit, the moral, altruistic "high horse" O'Bannon et al. have allegedly ridden in on.

IMO, your analogy doesn't quite work, because if i am ripped off by a street pickpocket, that is a crime committed against me and nobody else. But O'Bannon et al. have taken it upon themselves to legally act for their player brethren as well, many of whom may have no problem with what the NCAA does.

And I suspect that some of these college plaintiffs, like the NFL players, may have unrealistic expectations. They may think that if they win there's a pot of gold waiting for them, because they know that a company like EA Sports might pay a guy like Lebron James a million bucks to be on their video game. But, even if the players win, the money they will collect individually will be peanuts or even nothing at all, because a true "class" settlement will have money devoted to things that benefit college athletes as a class, like facilities or wellness programs on campuses. Only their lawyers will get rich.