Are College Sports About To Change In Ways We Don't Understand?

[PBRme]

But, how does any of this affect Kentucky

[Dawson Rental]

O'Bannon is trying to get certified as a class action.  Then he will represent literally thousands of previous athletes that had their likenesses used.  If he wins, universities will owe past athletes billions for using their likenesses.  Sounds like the certification is going to happen.

If O'Bannon gets certified and wins, Will MU owe players like George Thompson, Jim Chrones, Mo Lucas, Butch Lee, Jerome Whitehead, Doc Rivers, Tony Smith, Jim Mac, Dwayne Wade, the three Amigos, Vander Blue and many others millions in damages for using their likenesses?

It could bankrupt many of the storied NCAA programs.  Schools like Michigan and Texas could owe tens and tens of million to its past football and basketball players.

  1. George Thompson, Jim Chrones, Mo Lucas, Butch Lee, Jerome Whitehead, Doc Rivers, Tony Smith, Jim Mac, Dwayne Wade are all likely out of luck due to a thing called the statute of limitations.

  2. MU would not be the defendant on the hook for damages.  I haven't seen any mention of UCLA as a defendant in the O'Bannon suit.  The NCAA is probably the party that would be bankrupted by a verdict.  How that bankruptcy would affect the member schools, I don't know.  One likely result would be the BCS schools using that situation to break away and form their own association which they are almost certainly already planning to do anyway.

[barfolomew]

 2. MU would not be the defendant on the hook for damages.  I haven't seen any mention of UCLA as a defendant in the O'Bannon suit.  The NCAA is probably the party that would be bankrupted by a verdict.  How that bankruptcy would affect the member schools, I don't know.  One likely result would be the BCS schools using that situation to break away and form their own association which they are almost certainly already planning to do anyway.

That's an interesting point. I would suspect various conferences to band together to create their own governing bodies to represent their own interests. How those different bodies would coagulate into a single, premier post-season basketball tournament might be pretty messy.

[The Equalizer]

How about Stanford?  At the Tech peak it was estimated that $1 trillion (with a "t") of tech companies where started by students at Stanford while attending Standford, many of them graduate students.  In fact many went to Stanford because they knew they could hook up with other Stanford students, exploit University resources to create a company and get rich.  Some did not even stick around long enough to graduate.  This is why Silicon valley is located where it is, because of its strong ties to Stanford.  Hewlett Packard Sun Microsystems (which literally stands for "Stanford University Network"), Yahoo, Cisco, Google, 3com are just a few http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21846847/stanford-grads-companies-combined-equals-10th-largest-economy  Last time I checked, Stanford did not have a trillion dollar endowment.

How many of the companies you cite were formed by Stanford alumni--not by Stanford students?  Stanford would have a right of ownership to related research while done by graduate students working for them--but not Stanford alumni who started companies after they graduated.

The one from your list that WAS formed by students (Google), actualy DID give Stanford stock to pay to license the PageRank research.  The unversity made $336 million from the sale of that stock.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/318480/stanford_earns_336_million_off_google_stock/

In addition, Stanford still owns the patent for the Page Rank algorithm--not Google.  

As pointed out above, the AAU and MLB also restricted its athletes for much of the same reasons the NCAA uses.  They were both forced to change, and dragged into it screaming and kicking. So, what is happening with the O'Bannon case is not a revolution, but an evolution.  It's just the next one too fall.

The only change the O'Bannon case is likely to cause is an addition to the letter of intent that explititly grants the NCAA and university rights to the players names & likeness until they complete their eligiblity, in exchange for a) a scholarship and b) no claim on future earnings after completion of eligiblity.  Maybe they also have to guarantee 4 yeas of eduction in the event of injury.

The NCAA may be on the hook to pay former players for the mistake of not explicity asking for that grant previously, but they won't make the mistake going forward.  

[Dawson Rental]

That's an interesting point. I would suspect various conferences to band together to create their own governing bodies to represent their own interests. How those different bodies would coagulate into a single, premier post-season basketball tournament might be pretty messy.

Quite possibility, they won't.  Anyone ready for competing collegiate basketball championships?  It could lead to divided titles--just like professional boxing.

[GGGG]

The only change the O'Bannon case is likely to cause is an addition to the letter of intent that explititly grants the NCAA and university rights to the players names & likeness until they complete their eligiblity, in exchange for a) a scholarship and b) no claim on future earnings after completion of eligiblity.  Maybe they also have to guarantee 4 yeas of eduction in the event of injury.

The NCAA may be on the hook to pay former players for the mistake of not explicity asking for that grant previously, but they won't make the mistake going forward.   

Yep.  And until the college athletes act in unison (like MLB players did by forming a union), the NCAA's rule are going to be their rules.

[Tugg Speedman]

 1. George Thompson, Jim Chrones, Mo Lucas, Butch Lee, Jerome Whitehead, Doc Rivers, Tony Smith, Jim Mac, Dwayne Wade are all likely out of luck due to a thing called the statute of limitations.

  2. MU would not be the defendant on the hook for damages.  I haven't seen any mention of UCLA as a defendant in the O'Bannon suit.  The NCAA is probably the party that would be bankrupted by a verdict.  How that bankruptcy would affect the member schools, I don't know.  One likely result would be the BCS schools using that situation to break away and form their own association which they are almost certainly already planning to do anyway.

Don't the member schools of the NCAA fund it (or receive its profits from the tourney) so does liabilities of the NCAA pass through to the member schools?  That would be my bet.

[Tugg Speedman]

How many of the companies you cite were formed by Stanford alumni--not by Stanford students?  Stanford would have a right of ownership to related research while done by graduate students working for them--but not Stanford alumni who started companies after they graduated.

The one from your list that WAS formed by students (Google), actualy DID give Stanford stock to pay to license the PageRank research.  The unversity made $336 million from the sale of that stock.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/318480/stanford_earns_336_million_off_google_stock/

In addition, Stanford still owns the patent for the Page Rank algorithm--not Google.  

In addition to Google, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo.  After that literally dozens of web ventures.

Google stock was payment for the right to use patents held by Stanford.  Straight business deal.   it was not demanded by a contractual obligation of them being students as suggested earlier.

Also Michael Dell founded Dell computer and sold over $100k of computers while still living in the dorms at the University of Texas.

My point is no school demands engineering and computer students give up the ownership of ventures started while students using school resources.  In fact, they encourage it and then brag about it.  They even give gifted students scholarships to their school in hopes the start a billion dollar company while still a student using school resources.

Yet, if another kid is offered a scholarship to play basketball, he is not afforded the same opportunities.  Instead his likeness is used without payment and his income opportunities are severely restricted.

How is this fair?

[Tugg Speedman]

The NCAA may be on the hook to pay former players for the mistake of not explicity asking for that grant previously, but they won't make the mistake going forward.  

If O'Bannon is granted class action status and wins, this is the beginning of the process, not the end.  Lawsuits will immediately come breaking down all the barriers until student athletes are pure professionals.

Where does it ended?

As I suggested before, a future Andrew wiggins will sign an agent in High School that will negotiate shoe and clothing deals before he graduates.  Then that agent will be that lead in the recruiting process, negotiating a multi-year deal to play at a specific university which will include payment, likeness usage, meet/greet limits and an option to leave for the NBA.  In addition a future Victor Olidipo could even sit his sophomore or junior year demanding a new deal because he outperformed his Freshmen contract.

Dissolving the NCAA for another governing body does not change that.  The precedent is set in case law.

[Tugg Speedman]

That's an interesting point. I would suspect various conferences to band together to create their own governing bodies to represent their own interests. How those different bodies would coagulate into a single, premier post-season basketball tournament might be pretty messy.

If the courts rule what the NCAA is doing is illegal, simply disbanding it and starting another governing body to continue that illegal activity will not work.

If O'Bannon Wins a class action, no going back.

[Tugg Speedman]

Yep.  And until the college athletes act in unison (like MLB players did by forming a union), the NCAA's rule are going to be their rules.

Except it is illegal to form a union under NCAA rules as it is illegal to have representation (ie, an agent).

Chicken, Egg

[GGGG]

This is starting to remind me of your thread about college football being banned...you take one thing, blow it out of proportion, and come to a wild conclusion.  If you want to believe this is going to lead to agents, endorsement deals and contract, then fine...believe it.  I don't.

[The Equalizer]

In addition to Google, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo.  After that literally dozens of web ventures.

Google stock was payment for the right to use patents held by Stanford.  Straight business deal.   it was not demanded by a contractual obligation of them being students as suggested earlier.

Sorry, you're just wrong on this.  Stanford owned the research of Sergey Brin and Larry Page by a contractual obligation of them being students:

"The Google and Yahoo stories illustrate the application of Stanford’s Patent and Copyright Policies to real- life examples. Jerry Yang and David Filo disclosed their software to Stanford, requesting that Stanford confirm that Stanford did not have an ownership interest in the technology. Yang and Filo were Ph.D. students at Stanford and had used Stanford computers (which is usually considered to be incidental use) to develop the software; their professors confirmed that their invention was not related to their university responsibilities as students. Based on this information, Stanford did not claim ownership to what became the Yahoo search engine."

"In contrast, Sergey Brin and Larry Page had worked on a search engine for many years. Because the students had been paid by a government contract in the course of their research to satisfy their Ph.D. degree requirements, under both Stanford’s Patent and Copyright policies, Stanford had ownership to the software i.e., the written code. In addition, Stanford filed a patent on the method of ranking web pages in order to improve web searches. After trying to find the best licensee, Stanford determined that these inventors were in the best position to develop the invention effectively and so Stanford licensed the technology to their company, Google."

http://otl.stanford.edu/documents/KKsoftwarearticle.pdf

Also Michael Dell founded Dell computer and sold over $100k of computers while still living in the dorms at the University of Texas.

Was Michael Dell's work on his company related to the terms of his scholarship?  I don't think so--hell, he wasn't even a graduate student.  So I'm not sure why you thought this example was even relevant.

My point is no school demands engineering and computer students give up the ownership of ventures started while students using school resources.  In fact, they encourage it and then brag about it.  They even give gifted students scholarships to their school in hopes the start a billion dollar company while still a student using school resources.

And you're wrong.  If the students work is related to the reason they're granted a scholarship, the results of their work is most certainly owned by the university--exactly what happened with Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Stanford.

Yet, if another kid is offered a scholarship to play basketball, he is not afforded the same opportunities.  Instead his likeness is used without payment and his income opportunities are severely restricted.

How is this fair?

Because they're receiving a scholarship in exchange.

As I said, the change that will take place is that as part of the LOI or scholarship agreement, the student will explicity assign publicity and income rights to the university in exchange for a scholarship.

[forgetful]

In addition to Google, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo.  After that literally dozens of web ventures.

Google stock was payment for the right to use patents held by Stanford.  Straight business deal.   it was not demanded by a contractual obligation of them being students as suggested earlier.

Also Michael Dell founded Dell computer and sold over $100k of computers while still living in the dorms at the University of Texas.

My point is no school demands engineering and computer students give up the ownership of ventures started while students using school resources.  In fact, they encourage it and then brag about it.  They even give gifted students scholarships to their school in hopes the start a billion dollar company while still a student using school resources.

Yet, if another kid is offered a scholarship to play basketball, he is not afforded the same opportunities.  Instead his likeness is used without payment and his income opportunities are severely restricted.

How is this fair?

Dell was an undergraduate.  Unless he was receiving some sort of financial compensation from UT related to computer design it falls outside of the scope of any work for hire (unlike basketball players making money related to their basketball abilities).  

The tech examples as the equalizer admirably explains often do fall under such technology rights, similar to drug design and development from chemists, engineering and others.  In some cases, the University desides not to pursue the rights, but that is different than them not having the right to the technology.

Most universities are pretty good about not over-reaching their rights, but there are cases where the students were completely frozen out of their work product.

Now, the University does hold the right to use students for commercials/advertisements without consulting the students at all and they do not have to provide them with financial compensation.  That is akin to 'their likeness'.

[The Equalizer]

If O'Bannon is granted class action status and wins, this is the beginning of the process, not the end.  Lawsuits will immediately come breaking down all the barriers until student athletes are pure professionals.

Where does it ended?

It ends with the revised LOI, which will explicity grants the NCAA and university rights to the players names & likeness until they complete their eligiblity, in exchange for a) a scholarship and b) no claim on future earnings after completion of eligiblity.  Maybe they also have to guarantee 4 yeas of eduction in the event of injury.

The only thing the NCAA would give up is rights to players names & likenesses in perpetuity.

As I suggested before, a future Andrew wiggins will sign an agent in High School that will negotiate shoe and clothing deals before he graduates.  Then that agent will be that lead in the recruiting process, negotiating a multi-year deal to play at a specific university which will include payment, likeness usage, meet/greet limits and an option to leave for the NBA.

The problem is that the NCAA doesn't actually do anything to restrict a future Andrew Wiggins from doing most of this today.  The future Andrew Wiggins has every right to sign an agent in HS, negotiate shoe and clothing deals, earn money from meet/greets, license his likeness, hire an agent, try to play for an NBA team, etc.  

He just can't do any of this, and also play at an NCAA-affiliated school.

 In addition a future Victor Olidipo could even sit his sophomore or junior year demanding a new deal because he outperformed his Freshmen contract.

Players already do this all the time.  It's called a "Transfer".  

They also have options to "Declaring for Early Entry to the NBA Draft" or "Play professionally in Europe."

Look, O'Bannon isn't suing to overturn every rule the NCAA ever put it place--it's a class action on a very narrow aspect--specificialy the NCAA's insistence that players sign away their name and likeness in perpetuity for zero compensation.

The fallback position for the NCAA will be to trade a 4-year scholarship in exachnage for owning that name and likeness for the years the student is eligible and attending that institution.  

That still opens up a whole lot of questions--like can a school like MU feature Dwayne Wade in its media guide without compensating him--but it falls far short of your theory of free-agency with even fewer restrictions than any current professional sports league.  

[Jay Bee]

The original "O'Bannon" arguments were horrible and unfounded. All the class action to include current students crap is a new argument which came about because the original arguments stunk up the court room with their nonsense.

The "O'Bannon" arguments to change the NCAA's rules around amateurism and to pay student-athletes is new to the case. That's not at all what it has been about for the past four years.

BTW, all this talk about letters of intent - the NLI program is voluntary and MANY players do not even sign one with their school. You're confusing documents and procedures.

We're talking about Form 08-3a - where players say the NCAA may use their name and likeness to promote the NCAA's events, activities and programs. And that's all it says.

"O'Bannon" early on tried to argue that players essentially sign away their ability to ever earn money based on their name and likeness from their college days... depositions clearly have shot that b.s. to pieces.

Michael Hausfield will continue to seek out $$ however possible.

[Tugg Speedman]

Seems like everyone but this board think an O'Bannon win is a big deal.

-------------------

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130402/ed-obannon-ncaa-case-primer/

Ed O'Bannon v. the NCAA: A complete case primer

When the USC athletic director told SI.com's Stewart Mandel that his fellow ADs and other school leaders need to think long and hard about the potential repercussions of an NCAA loss in the antitrust lawsuit originally filed by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, Haden echoed the thoughts of dozens of his colleagues. Many ADs have said the same thing for the past few months, always followed by "Don't quote me on that." Some of the most powerful people in college sports are frustrated with the NCAA's unwillingness to update them on the progress of the case, and they fear they might have to pick up the pieces if the NCAA can't uphold the status quo in court.

If this sounds like a huge deal, that's because it is. Few cases against the NCAA get this far, and the millions of dollars invested by the plaintiffs' attorneys -- many of whom see the NCAA and college conferences as a poor man's Big Tobacco -- ensure this will be a bloody fight. Unfortunately, we in the media have done as poor a job explaining the importance of this case to the public as the NCAA has done updating its member institutions on its defense. NCAA president Mark Emmert will likely get quite a few questions about the case when he addresses the media this week in Atlanta ahead of the Final Four, but, like most CEOs of companies getting sued for a gazillion dollars, he'll probably decline comment or stick to only the most general terms. In this primer, we'll dig much deeper into the case.
What's at stake?

Only the entire business model for major college athletics. This began in 2009 as a case about the NCAA profiting off the likenesses of former athletes in EA Sports video games. The case took a hard right turn in January, when federal judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the plaintiffs could add current athletes to the case and that the plaintiffs could go after everyone profiting off the likenesses of college athletes. That includes the conferences and the networks that televise the games. At college sports' highest level -- think the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC -- television revenue is the primary economic driver. If a jury were to rule that athletes were entitled to a large percentage of that revenue -- the plaintiffs have suggested half -- it would turn the economic model for major college sports on its ear. Schools would have to give players a cut of the television revenue beyond their scholarships.
Who is involved?

The most visible plaintiffs are O'Bannon and former Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller, but the legal team -- with the help of perpetual athlete advocate/NCAA antagonist Sonny Vaccaro -- has also attached such luminaries as Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell. The defendants are the NCAA, EA Sports and the Collegiate Licensing Company. The CLC, founded by recently named Alabama athletic director Bill Battle, handles trademarks and licensing for most major schools, and it is now a division of IMG College.

The phalanx of plaintiffs' attorneys is led Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP. Hausfeld has represented Native Americans in Alaska against Exxon after the Valdez spill, Holocaust victims against Swiss banks who kept their assets after World War II and consumers in the European Union's antitrust case against Microsoft. The plaintiffs also are working with Ken Feinberg, who has organized distribution plans for financial settlements for 9/11 victims, those effected by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, victims of the Aurora, Colo., theater shootings and sexual abuse victims of former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. Feinberg has been placed along with Vaccaro and National Collegiate Players Association president Ramogi Huma on the board of directors of the Former College Athletes Association. This likely would be the group through which any settlement funds would be distributed. The NCAA is represented primarily by Ann Arbor, Mich., firm Schiff Hardin LLP.
What is the next key date?

On June 20, in Oakland, Calif., Wilken will hold a class certification hearing. This is a critical moment in the case. If the class gets certified, the NCAA will be backed into a corner. It could either fight and risk a judgment that could run into the billions, or it could settle and force schools into a new economic model. If Wilken does not certify the class, the plaintiffs would all have to file their own lawsuits. Unless thousands took the initiative to file, the NCAA could probably settle with a few plaintiffs and make this go away.

While the NCAA has not revealed much of its defense strategy, it did file a motion in opposition of class certification that shows what tack its attorneys intend to take with regard to the class. The NCAA will rely heavily on its victories in two cases brought by former athletes that contended the NCAA's scholarship-limit rules were illegal restraints of trade. In tossing a case brought by a former Rice football walk-on, a judge ruled that each member of the class would have had to prove he would have been good enough to receive a scholarship had no limit been in place. Essentially, the potential members of the class didn't have enough in common. That argument might work here, but it also would open up the NCAA to individual suits from players who can prove they were not paid for the marketing of their likeness. This likely includes any player whose jersey number was sold at retail stores during his career. A Mark Ingram or Johnny Manziel would have little trouble proving the school received significant value for using the player's likeness. Heck, if Manziel ever decided to file a suit, Texas A&M has already done much of the work for him. John Infante, the author of the excellent Bylaw Blog, wrote a more thorough examination of this issue last month.
What might happen?

These types of cases rarely reach a jury because they either get thrown out by a judge or a defendant realizes there is too much money at stake to risk a negative verdict. Still, each side is fairly dug in, so let's break this section into two subsections.

If the class gets certified and the case goes to trial on June 9, 2014 ...

• The NCAA could prevail in a jury trial, and if the verdict is upheld on appeal, the status quo would be retained.

• The NCAA could lose a jury trial, and the jurors could award the plaintiffs everything they want. If this held up on appeal -- remember, damages in antitrust cases are tripled -- it likely would bankrupt the NCAA and force schools to form a new governing body. It also would force schools to negotiate a better deal for athletes, who would now be legally entitled to a share of television revenue. This would result in more money for the players, less money for coaches and administrators and less spending on stadium additions and fancy weight rooms. It also likely would require the cutting of some non-revenue sports as departments adjust to decreased revenue. This wouldn't be a sudden change. The appeals process would take years.

• The jury could do to the O'Bannon plaintiffs what a federal jury did to the USFL in 1986. The jury declared the NFL a monopoly -- a win for the USFL -- but awarded the league just $1 in damages. This was tripled to $3. With interest, the NFL wound up paying out $3.76.

If the case gets settled ...

If the class gets certified and the schools and the NCAA decide to cut a deal with the plaintiffs, the possibilities are endless. This is the most logical: The schools agree to set aside a portion of revenue -- one power-conference AD I spoke to recently tossed out $2 million a year -- to distribute to athletes. This money would be placed in a trust and given to the athlete only when that athlete obtains a degree.

From a practical standpoint, this would require a new NCAA subdivision. The schools of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC are the only ones that could afford such a model. This would offer them an even greater recruiting advantage than they already have over the poorer leagues. They would have to compete only amongst themselves in football. From a viewer's standpoint, that would be fantastic. School leaders insist such a settlement would require them to distribute the money evenly among all athletes so as not to run afoul of Title IX. If so, it still wouldn't address the issue of a select few athletes receiving significantly less than market value. It could lead to more legal action, but conversations with those on the plaintiffs' side suggest this is a deal they'd be willing to make. But it would cost much more than $2 million a year per school.

If you've been reading SI.com, you know Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany believes his league's presidents would opt to downsize to a Division III or non-scholarship model rather than participate in such a settlement. The binding television contracts and hefty debt-service obligations at most of the schools suggest that's an empty threat. But in the interview in which he outlined his views, Delany did bring up an interesting point. If schools did increase the amount of money to athletes, would those athletes then be considered employees by the government? That brings a bevy of taxation and Worker's Compensation issues into the equation.

Given all these possibilities, Haden's concern is understandable. Athletic directors and campus leaders need to prepare, because the least likely outcome seems to be the retention of the status quo.

-----------------

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130401/pat-haden-ed-obannon-ncaa/

USC's Haden: Ed O'Bannon case could cause seismic NCAA change

NCAA leaders will converge on Atlanta this weekend for the Final Four, the organization's annual celebratory event of not only basketball, but of college athletics as a whole. Mark Emmert and his brass aren't likely to let the hovering cloud of an industry-threatening lawsuit dampen the party, but at least one prominent athletic official thinks it's time to start bracing for the worst.

USC athletic director Pat Haden says he's concerned the NCAA may lose the pending Ed O'Bannon antitrust suit regarding the commercialization of college athletes. He is encouraging conference and national colleagues to start discussing contingency plans.

"We ought to be kept abreast of it at all times, and we ought to prepare for it in case we lose," said Haden, a former practicing attorney and businessman who became an athletic director in 2010. "I haven't followed the case closely, but what I read from legal scholars, it's not a slam dunk for the NCAA."

The case, filed by former UCLA basketball star O'Bannon in 2009 and eventually expanded to include high-profile co-plaintiffs like Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell, initially focused solely on the use of former athletes' likeness in products such as EA Sports' NCAA video games, for which the individuals are not compensated. (EA Sports is a co-defendant.) However, in a motion for class certification filed last August, the plaintiffs contended that both current and former athletes should be included in the case and argued they are entitled to 50 percent of revenue generated by NCAA and conference television contracts.

In other words, it has become a pay-for-play case.

"The context of the lawsuit has changed. What do we do if we lost?" Haden said of the NCAA's side. "All of a sudden your television revenue -- let's say it's $20 million a year [for a school]. Now if they win, it's $10 million a year. How do you make your 21 sports work on half the revenue?"

In January, the judge in the case denied an NCAA motion to strike the plaintiffs from pursuing their class-action claim, with the NCAA arguing that the plaintiffs had radically changed the case midstream. A hearing before Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court in Northern California is scheduled for June 20. The trial would not take place until July 2014.

"This is the most threatening lawsuit the NCAA has ever faced," said SI.com legal expert Michael McCann, a University of New Hampshire sports law professor. "If O'Bannon prevails, it would radically change the economics of college sports. More specifically, it would, like Pat Haden said, require schools to operate a sports program with substantially less money."

Despite the potentially seismic implications, most college athletic officials have publicly downplayed the possibility of an unfavorable outcome to this point. The NCAA, as would be expected of a defendant in a lawsuit, has remained confident that it will ultimately prevail. "This case has always been wrong -- wrong on the facts and wrong on the law," NCAA executive vice president and chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement last month. "We look forward to its eventual resolution in the courts." And for the most part, that mindset has trickled down to college administrators.

"There's conversation [about the case], but it's in the courts. We have no control over it," Texas AD DeLoss Dodds said recently. "I don't hear people saying, 'Here's what were going to do if it happens.' ... I've got more immediate things to worry about."

In recent court filings brought on behalf of the NCAA in its motion against class certification, several athletic administrators (including Dodds) laid out various consequences if the plaintiffs' "50-50" proposition were to become reality. Most notably, as Andy Staples reported, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany suggested his conference members might opt for a Division III model in which no athletic scholarships would be awarded. Such doomsday scenarios are considered wildly unrealistic, but a victory for the plaintiffs or even a pre-trial settlement would almost certainly require fundamental changes for athletic departments.

"What it means is coaches' salaries will go down, as one outcome," said McCann. "Some sports teams will be cut is another outcome. Schools still have to comply with Title IX. Schools have to become more strategic."

McCann believes the parties will eventually settle due to the extent of potential damages for the NCAA, though it's impossible to predict what scope that would entail. If the case does go to trial, realistically it will be many years before there's a resolution, as whichever side loses is nearly certain to appeal.

So athletic officials do have time to start devising contingency plans, if any of them share Haden's sense of urgency.

"What I'm reading is that we have a real chance of losing," Haden said. "It will work its way through the system, and there we go."

[Tugg Speedman]

This is starting to remind me of your thread about college football being banned...you take one thing, blow it out of proportion, and come to a wild conclusion.  If you want to believe this is going to lead to agents, endorsement deals and contract, then fine...believe it.  I don't.

Sultan, once you start getting things correct things will go smoothly around here.  

I wrote over and over that I never thought football (college or Pro) was getting banned.  The point of that thread was to note that big advocates of football like Buzz Bizinger (author of Friday Night Lights) and SI's Peter King were advocating football should be banned.  Again!  I disagreed with that position.  

I did argue that football's popularity was peaking no and in 10 to 15 years it would be as popular is Baseball.  You and the rest argued that none of this matter and nothing will change.  We'll see (and given the changes in the concussion rules, I have the early lead).

Regarding "my belief" that the O'Bannon case will lead to agents, that is the belief of everyone that follows this case except the posters on this board.  Both O'Bannon and the NCAA are not spending millions of dollars and thousands of hours to get one one line in a LOI changed and the status quo continues.  Above I've posted numerous stories that say the college business model will end with an O'Bannon victory and SA's will essentially become professionals.  If so, Agents are a natural extension of that.

The O'Bannon case is four years old, it has been picking up steam this summer.  If he wins, (again, if he wins) everything changes.

The better question to ask here is if he wins, do college sports get better or worse?  I say better.

[Dawson Rental]

I'm encouraged by the following quote:

"From a practical standpoint, this would require a new NCAA subdivision. The schools of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC are the only ones that could afford such a model. This would offer them an even greater recruiting advantage than they already have over the poorer leagues. They would have to compete only amongst themselves in football. "

This would likely be the start of football schools who lost out on the recent BCS conference game of "musical chairs" being left with the best alternative being to go to FCS football (were Butler and Georgetown play).  And then joining the Big East.  Hello, UConn, hello Memphis.  We might even see some other schools dropping out of BCS conferences if their portion of TV revenue isn't enough to keep their football programs (with the attendant Title IX obligations) afloat.

[GGGG]

I'm encouraged by the following quote:

"From a practical standpoint, this would require a new NCAA subdivision. The schools of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC are the only ones that could afford such a model. This would offer them an even greater recruiting advantage than they already have over the poorer leagues. They would have to compete only amongst themselves in football. "

This would likely be the start of football schools who lost out on the recent BCS conference game of "musical chairs" being left with the best alternative being to go to FCS football (were Butler and Georgetown play).  And then joining the Big East.  Hello, UConn, hello Memphis.  We might even see some other schools dropping out of BCS conferences if their portion of TV revenue isn't enough to keep their football programs (with the attendant Title IX obligations) afloat.

On your first point, that very well might happen.  A lot of these bowl games exist because of the "Big 5" conferences and the eyeballs they bring.  For instance, are people going to want to see a bowl game between some AAC school and an MWC school?  Not sure.

OTOH, if they drop down to FCS en masse, there really is no need for them to change conferences.

On the second point, I can't think of a single school that would drop out of a "Big 5" conference.  When potentially the most likely candidates are TCU, Iowa State and Wake Forest, I just don't see that happening.

[Galway Eagle]

Quite possibility, they won't.  Anyone ready for competing collegiate basketball championships?  It could lead to divided titles--just like professional boxing.

I wouldn't say just like professional boxing as there's literally hundreds of titles from city titles, to regional titles, certain states have titles, then country and continental titles, then obviously the governing body titles, but some don't matter as much as the big 3 titles.  Quite frankly it'd compare to boxing if you were to have a giant pool of all NAIA, Juco, and NCAA D1, D2, and D3 schools plus whatever the new league would be, where if you win the Naia or juco tournament you move up and get a shot to compete at a new level and then you'd also need to play the new champion every year defending your title.  It'd actually be fun to see how the different leagues compare in this sense but it'd never happen. 

A more accurate comparison would be like the NBA vs ABA or the AFL vs NFL before 1970. 

[forgetful]

I'm encouraged by the following quote:

"From a practical standpoint, this would require a new NCAA subdivision. The schools of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC are the only ones that could afford such a model. This would offer them an even greater recruiting advantage than they already have over the poorer leagues. They would have to compete only amongst themselves in football. "

This would likely be the start of football schools who lost out on the recent BCS conference game of "musical chairs" being left with the best alternative being to go to FCS football (were Butler and Georgetown play).  And then joining the Big East.  Hello, UConn, hello Memphis.  We might even see some other schools dropping out of BCS conferences if their portion of TV revenue isn't enough to keep their football programs (with the attendant Title IX obligations) afloat.

This is possible.  I don't believe it would happen as it rely defies logic, but those conferences are mostly state schools. 

If the courts order the NCAA to share TV revenue, I would expect the state universities will not comply.  If there are any court cases that ensue, they will claim sovereign immunity.

I know that is some states plan if they ever get sued for patent infringement.

[Tugg Speedman]

This is possible.  I don't believe it would happen as it rely defies logic, but those conferences are mostly state schools.  

If the courts order the NCAA to share TV revenue, I would expect the state universities will not comply.  If there are any court cases that ensue, they will claim sovereign immunity.

I know that is some states plan if they ever get sued for patent infringement.

Share TV revenues with who?  From the primer above:

The NCAA could lose a jury trial, and the jurors could award the plaintiffs everything they want. If this held up on appeal -- remember, damages in antitrust cases are tripled -- it likely would bankrupt the NCAA and force schools to form a new governing body. It also would force schools to negotiate a better deal for athletes, who would now be legally entitled to a share of television revenue. This would result in more money for the players, less money for coaches and administrators and less spending on stadium additions and fancy weight rooms. It also likely would require the cutting of some non-revenue sports as departments adjust to decreased revenue. This wouldn't be a sudden change. The appeals process would take years.

Answer is share revenue with the players.  So half the B1G athletic budgets go to the players (nice way of saying they are professional players).

How can the states not comply with this?  If O'Bannon wins it is the law that they have to share revenues with players.  It is not voluntary.

So, if you want a football team, either share revenues with the players or have no revenues (beyond ticket sales and basic TV rights) which means the athletic departments at places like Michigan are running at a massive loss.

[Galway Eagle]

Anyone know the status of the court case?  Like is there a verdict expected anytime soon? Or is this going to be a case that takes ages and ages?

[Jay Bee]

Anyone know the status of the court case?  Like is there a verdict expected anytime soon? Or is this going to be a case that takes ages and ages?

Years & years.

Plaintiffs keep changing their cries.

What the case will even be ABOUT is in question.