I expect O'Bannon to "win" to some degree. Hopefully it's enough to break down the structure of the NCAA. It has nothing to do with major conference versus lesser conferences and everything to do with the NCAA being a bloated middle man that could and should be scaled back in scope, to the benefit of all.

(06-28-2014 11:37 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...-antitrust

NCAA punched a hole in O'Bannon's case from what it looks like.

Were the consumers hurt by original NFL labor practices? Nope. In fact player free agency increased ticket prices and made the sport less affordable. I think the Pomerantz is taking a very narrow view in his testimony. Frankly, the less labor is paid, the better it always is for the consumer. Didn't matter in free agency suits brought against the NFL and MLB (MLB even has a antitrust exemption and it didn't save them).

Bottom line, I think its already been established that anti-competitive and collusive activity designed to limit employee pay can run afoul of anti-trust laws. I don't think the Pomerantz testimony amounts to much.

Some of the tweets coming out on the NCAA-EA Games settlement indicate that "use and likeness" payments will be capped at 5K a player. Applies to current and future players.

Wouldn't that indicate that the NCAA has already agreed to at least one of the options the O'Bannon judge suggested.