http://www.chicagotribune.com/la-sp-obannon-vs-ncaa-20130620,0,2380874.story
New York Times article this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/sports/high-stakes-games-critical-step-for-suit-seeking-payment-for-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
Some of the emails referenced express a lot of concern about the use of the likenesses in the video games, but they were talked down by the people who wanted to maximize the revenue.
Personally when I read statements like this, I want to throw up:
"If athletes were to receive a portion of the television money they help generate, college sports could be irreparably harmed, according to a series of written statements filed with the court by Delany and other college and conference executives."
"Irreparably harmed???" Seriously? Stop the hyperbole.
Quote from: Terror Skink on June 20, 2013, 09:05:32 AM
New York Times article this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/sports/high-stakes-games-critical-step-for-suit-seeking-payment-for-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
Some of the emails referenced express a lot of concern about the use of the likenesses in the video games, but they were talked down by the people who wanted to maximize the revenue.
Personally when I read statements like this, I want to throw up:
"If athletes were to receive a portion of the television money they help generate, college sports could be irreparably harmed, according to a series of written statements filed with the court by Delany and other college and conference executives."
"Irreparably harmed???" Seriously? Stop the hyperbole.
He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund. Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc. The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports. Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere. In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas. I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).
O'Bannon's law firm = ambulance chasers.
Doesn't invalidate arguments that may be made in the case, but lots of nonsense brought forth so far.
http://www.ibj.com/landmark-ncaa-player-likeness-case-set-to-get-underway/PARAMS/article/42004
Indianapolis Business Journal article.
Looking at it at the base level from a basketball perspective, the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness...if you don't like it, go play in Europe.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on June 20, 2013, 10:02:10 AM
http://www.ibj.com/landmark-ncaa-player-likeness-case-set-to-get-underway/PARAMS/article/42004
Indianapolis Business Journal article.
Looking at it at the base level from a basketball perspective, the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness...if you don't like it, go play in Europe.
The problem with that claim is that it's patently FALSE. It's a lie gobbled up by the media.
The plaintiff has already started altering their course in a major way. Their focus (which for the attorneys is truly $$ and greed) has shifted to wanting amateurs to not be amateurs - they want them to get paid in college. Really, the plaintiff will change arguments to follow wherever they feel money may be.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on June 20, 2013, 10:02:10 AM
http://www.ibj.com/landmark-ncaa-player-likeness-case-set-to-get-underway/PARAMS/article/42004
Indianapolis Business Journal article.
Looking at it at the base level from a basketball perspective, the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness...if you don't like it, go play in Europe.
Do what big business says (and the NCAA is big business) or leave the country. Umm, sounds more like Germany in the 1930s than the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 20, 2013, 09:50:40 AM
He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund. Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc. The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports. Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere. In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas. I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).
The cynic could say that every football and basketball player could receive decent compensation if paid for by the head coaches in those two sports who make absurd money. Coach pay has spiraled out of control in just the last couple of decades.
Quote from: MU82 on June 20, 2013, 10:13:12 AM
The cynic could say that every football and basketball player could receive decent compensation if paid for by the head coaches in those two sports who make absurd money. Coach pay has spiraled out of control in just the last couple of decades.
A head coach's salary is a small piece of a program's operating expenses. It's an easy thing to get people all freaked out about, but whether you're paying a guy $1 million or $2 million to coach.. that's not going to cure your expense problem.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 20, 2013, 09:50:40 AM
He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund. Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc. The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports. Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere. In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas. I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).
Colleges and universities have been dropping sports for decades due to budget constraints...but *now* they are "irreparably harmed?" Logically that makes no sense.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 20, 2013, 10:06:19 AM
The problem with that claim is that it's patently FALSE. It's a lie gobbled up by the media.
My understanding is that they allow the NCAA to use their images for promotional purposes. Is that correct?
The problem with the Chicago Tribune article (and by reference the New York Times article) is that college presidents are missing the point.
It is not a matter of whether the sport will be hurt. It's a matter of the law.
Does law allow for colleges to take advantage of revenue-producing basketball and football players to support non-revenue sports and other activities? I did not hear even one of these learned men discuss the intricacies of the law.
For any of you who ever watched the Financial Accounting Standards Board make GAAP in the US, it's the same principal here. We care not what it does to business. What is good accounting that reflects the economic realitiies of a transaction. Here it is, "what does the law say about this type of contract." Dam* the consequences -- let Congress deal with that!
As a final thought, many college presidents sound like baseball owners in 1974 and 1975 when asked about free agency. "It will kill the sport," they said, totally ignoring the fact that the reserve clause as they interpreted it was wrong. Today, baseball isn't dead and college athletics will survive, regardless of the outcome of the O'Bannon decision.
Quote from: Terror Skink on June 20, 2013, 10:27:27 AM
My understanding is that they allow the NCAA to use their images for promotional purposes. Is that correct?
Yes - their name and image.
The "relinquishment of rights" argument has been destroyed. Mostly because it's completely false and history has proven it to be so. Deposition related to this case includes former NCAA athletes that thoroughly beats up this nonsense. That's one reason why the "O'Bannon attorneys", less one of the lead attorneys who left in the fall and sued the firm, have changed their focus.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 20, 2013, 10:18:26 AM
A head coach's salary is a small piece of a program's operating expenses. It's an easy thing to get people all freaked out about, but whether you're paying a guy $1 million or $2 million to coach.. that's not going to cure your expense problem.
Small piece. Well, let's say Buzz's pay is cut by $1 million. That's $76,923 for each of 13 scholarship basketball players. I doubt they'd call nearly 77k "small."
Look, I am not proposing to give every basketball player 77k. I'm just saying that revolutions have been made from lesser things.
Saying the NCAA "can't afford" to compensate athletes a few thousand bucks while its coaches rake in several million is like a non-profit hospital saying it can't give nurses 2% raises while paying its CEO $10 million. There's a moral disconnect.
Quote from: MU82 on June 20, 2013, 10:37:46 AM
Small piece. Well, let's say Buzz's pay is cut by $1 million. That's $76,923 for each of 13 scholarship basketball players. I doubt they'd call nearly 77k "small."
Look, I am not proposing to give every basketball player 77k. I'm just saying that revolutions have been made from lesser things.
Saying the NCAA "can't afford" to compensate athletes a few thousand bucks while its coaches rake in several million is like a non-profit hospital saying it can't give nurses 2% raises while paying its CEO $10 million. There's a moral disconnect.
I have no interest in talking about "moral disconnects". That's not the issue for me. If you want to talk about "what's right" and "what's wrong" - go ahead. You'll find a wide range of differing opinions. That's not what the case is about, though.
Thinking with your emotions and feelings often results in people coming up with irrelevant thoughts/theories/arguments. This case is yet another example.
Quote from: MU82 on June 20, 2013, 10:37:46 AM
Saying the NCAA "can't afford" to compensate athletes a few thousand bucks while its coaches rake in several million is like a non-profit hospital saying it can't give nurses 2% raises while paying its CEO $10 million. There's a moral disconnect.
The problem with this is not that many coaches rake in several million. And then how does the NCAA decide what player gets paid what amount for what sport? Does Vander Blue make more for last year than Jamal Ferguson? How about Doug McDermott vs his other teammates? Or how about Nate Wolters at South Dakota State?
Do we limit this only to football and mens basketball? Or to programs that are profitable? How much should Britney Griner have earned over her time at Baylor? She brought massive exposure to womens bball.
Then we have lacrosse. Should MU lacrosse players be receiving money right now? I'm sure Duke and Johns Hopkins programs are profitable. How much should their players be receiving over others? Same goes with track and field. Oregon's team has a lot of exposure but most programs lose money.
The biggest problem I have with this is where is the line drawn? How do we decide what players in what sports make how much money? When we start delving into that issue, it seems to draw more towards players having agents negotiating with programs and I think that is where we get carried away from the essence of college athletics.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 20, 2013, 09:50:40 AM
He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund. Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc. The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports. Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere. In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas. I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).
From the exact same guy who insists that we have to subsidize the 100's of channels nobody watches.
What exactly is the "essence of college athletics?" If we are talking about the true "student-athlete" model that is an extension of high school, and really only exists at the D3 level, (with a scholarship thrown in for good measure.), could you really say that ever really existed in high level sports?
But to answer some of your other questions...
"And then how does the NCAA decide what player gets paid what amount for what sport? Does Vander Blue make more for last year than Jamal Ferguson? How about Doug McDermott vs his other teammates? Or how about Nate Wolters at South Dakota State?"
I personally would make the scholarship more valuable...tack on a certain fixed amount beyond the direct costs of the University. What is that figure? Who knows, but if you start with breaking down that barrier, it really wouldn't be hard to figure out.
"Then we have lacrosse. Should MU lacrosse players be receiving money right now? I'm sure Duke and Johns Hopkins programs are profitable. How much should their players be receiving over others? Same goes with track and field. Oregon's team has a lot of exposure but most programs lose money."
Since those sports have players with partial scholarships, the extra $$ would be doled out similarly as part of the extra portion of those scholarships.
Quote from: warrior07 on June 20, 2013, 11:11:21 AM
From the exact same guy who insists that we have to subsidize the 100's of channels nobody watches.
You obviously haven't been reading anything that I've been saying. I'm all for a la carte, I've told you why the studios and content providers won't do it and the ramifications of it going through, which is much higher costs for customers with much fewer choices.
Quote from: MU82 on June 20, 2013, 10:37:46 AM
Small piece. Well, let's say Buzz's pay is cut by $1 million. That's $76,923 for each of 13 scholarship basketball players. I doubt they'd call nearly 77k "small."
Look, I am not proposing to give every basketball player 77k. I'm just saying that revolutions have been made from lesser things.
Saying the NCAA "can't afford" to compensate athletes a few thousand bucks while its coaches rake in several million is like a non-profit hospital saying it can't give nurses 2% raises while paying its CEO $10 million. There's a moral disconnect.
Might be a moral disconnect, but also look at who is paying for the coaches salaries, often funded by boosters, etc. It's going to be an equally moral disconnect when the basketball player is paid and the women's soccer player isn't. Or the wide receiver with a 2.0 is paid while the offensive lineman with a 4.0 working just as hard is paid less, despite embodying the student athlete credo to a much higher level.
The reality is college sports, too often, is viewed through the lens of only hoops and football and the dollars associated with it. The reality is there are 33 DI sports, let alone DII and DIII which only multiplies things. 95% of these things are money losers on their own. That's the model. Bring in Title IX and all kinds of other fun stuff, and it's a very complex situation. Without the model today, most of those other sports are in jeopardy to some degree as the NCAA championships for those sports are paid for by the evil TV contracts.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 20, 2013, 12:04:12 PM
Might be a moral disconnect, but also look at who is paying for the coaches salaries, often funded by boosters, etc. It's going to be an equally moral disconnect when the basketball player is paid and the women's soccer player isn't. Or the wide receiver with a 2.0 is paid while the offensive lineman with a 4.0 working just as hard is paid less, despite embodying the student athlete credo to a much higher level.
Have any of you people ever heard of a market economy? It aint morals folks... it's the market. Cut Buzz's salary by $1 million and see how fast Hiroshima happens and he's on his way to the University of Texas.
Why do you think the Big East as we knew it is gone? Market economy folks. Those football schools get paid more playing with football schools rather than basketball specialists.
Let's face it, as much as those morons running universities today want to argue about morals, costs and benefits, they're capitalists, just like I am. They're following the Gordon Gecko belief, "Greed is Good!" Their fight against the O'Bannon lawsuit is designed to protect the goose laying the golden eggs. Paying athletes means change and means the gold gets distributed wider and less favorably.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 20, 2013, 10:06:19 AM
The problem with that claim is that it's patently FALSE. It's a lie gobbled up by the media.
The plaintiff has already started altering their course in a major way. Their focus (which for the attorneys is truly $$ and greed) has shifted to wanting amateurs to not be amateurs - they want them to get paid in college. Really, the plaintiff will change arguments to follow wherever they feel money may be.
How is this patently false? The student-athlete signs their scholarship form 08-3a, giving the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness.(ncaa manual 12.5.2.1)
.Now, if we are talking whther or not the former player should be paid for any "new sales", after graduation, I think that is up for debate...Just not while they are a student athlete.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 20, 2013, 11:54:14 AM
You obviously haven't been reading anything that I've been saying. I'm all for a la carte, I've told you why the studios and content providers won't do it and the ramifications of it going through, which is much higher costs for customers with much fewer choices.
And that would be a problem, why? If the market can't support those people, others shouldn't be forced to subsidize. Same goes for entertainment as it does for college athletics.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on June 20, 2013, 12:27:42 PM
How is this patently false? The student-athlete signs their scholarship form 08-3a, giving the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness.(ncaa manual 12.5.2.1)
.Now, if we are talking whther or not the former player should be paid for any "new sales", after graduation, I think that is up for debate...Just not while they are a student athlete.
First, 12.5.2.1 addresses NONPERMISSABLE ACTIVITIES once becoming a student-athlete (i.e., SA's can't receive $). Part IV of Form 08-3a is what you're referring to, but again - it does NOT grant the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness.
Again, the claim made over and over in the media is that players "relinquish their rights forever to the NCAA". That is absolutely false.
"the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness..." is what I said is patently false. I said this is false because it is false.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 20, 2013, 12:46:58 PM
First, 12.5.2.1 addresses NONPERMISSABLE ACTIVITIES once becoming a student-athlete (i.e., SA's can't receive $). Part IV of Form 08-3a is what you're referring to, but again - it does NOT grant the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness.
Again, the claim made over and over in the media is that players "relinquish their rights forever to the NCAA". That is absolutely false.
"the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness..." is what I said is patently false. I said this is false because it is false.
If the student athlete wants to remain a student athlete, they do give up their right to use their likeness for profit. So they are signing a contract giving up their right to their likeness for the time they are an amateur. They are free to quit school and go make commercials, sell cars, etc. They just cannot do it in a college uniform. I agree with you on the whole rights in perpetuity argument. Nowhere, does it say this. That is what the suit should be about (and technically, I think it is). After graduation, the NCAA should not be able to use a players likeness to sell a video game. Have not read the case in depth, but did Obannon sue EA sports previously?
Quote from: indeelaw90 on June 20, 2013, 12:58:48 PM
If the student athlete wants to remain a student athlete, they do give up their right to use their likeness for profit. So they are signing a contract giving up their right to their likeness for the time they are an amateur. They are free to quit school and go make commercials, sell cars, etc. They just cannot do it in a college uniform. I agree with you on the whole rights in perpetuity argument. Nowhere, does it say this. That is what the suit should be about (and technically, I think it is). After graduation, the NCAA should not be able to use a players likeness to sell a video game. Have not read the case in depth, but did Obannon sue EA sports previously?
"The student-athlete signs their scholarship form 08-3a, giving the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness" is what you said. NO!
Now you say, "So they are signing a contract giving up their right to their likeness for the time they are an amateur."
College athletes are not eligible to make big bank for being an athlete while in college. EVERY ONE KNOWS THIS - THIS IS NOT BEING DISPUTED! It's fact. If they do, they will likely be ineligible for competition.
What a student-athlete does is authorize the NCAA to use the SA's image & name for promotional purposes. That's it. Most media claims it to be something far more (and most people believe this, including you).
O'Bannon originally brought forth suit "because" EA had a game with an old UCLA team in it. However, the NCAA has NEVER licensed the use of a former SA's image or likeness to EA or any other video game producer. Is there a decent question as to whether EA paid $ to the NCAA, with the plan of making players in the game look like / "rated like" real players? Sure.
But that's not where the case is going. There are no exclusive rights that the NCAA has on a player's image or name. There are also no (directly) licensing of a player's image or name the NCAA does.
The plaintiff could turn into a huge group that includes challenges whether student-athletes should be paid. There is past case law that has dealt with this. I'm OK with having that debate, but the claim of exclusive rights to license for profit that are signed away in some contract is nonsense.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 20, 2013, 12:27:27 PM
Have any of you people ever heard of a market economy? It aint morals folks... it's the market. Cut Buzz's salary by $1 million and see how fast Hiroshima happens and he's on his way to the University of Texas.
Why do you think the Big East as we knew it is gone? Market economy folks. Those football schools get paid more playing with football schools rather than basketball specialists.
Let's face it, as much as those morons running universities today want to argue about morals, costs and benefits, they're capitalists, just like I am. They're following the Gordon Gecko belief, "Greed is Good!" Their fight against the O'Bannon lawsuit is designed to protect the goose laying the golden eggs. Paying athletes means change and means the gold gets distributed wider and less favorably.
Yes, and largely I agree with a market economy, but not for all things. It's never that simple. Should the NFL have a market economy and no revenue sharing so the Dallas Cowboys, NY Giants, and a few others get 80% of the revenues? What would happen to competition? Why are the Bengals getting the same split of the television pie despite the Cowboys having much better tv ratings? People watch the Cowboys, not the Bengals....in a market economy they would be the benefactors not every team.
Would Marquette be able to survive athletically on its own without forming an alliance like the Big East? Absolutely not.
In college athletics, the two revenue driving sports fund everything. Think of it like the USA where the 53% of us that pay federal income taxes fund the whole enchilada for the other 47%. It is what it is.
Quote from: MU82 on June 20, 2013, 10:37:46 AM
Small piece. Well, let's say Buzz's pay is cut by $1 million. That's $76,923 for each of 13 scholarship basketball players. I doubt they'd call nearly 77k "small."
How much would each athlete get if you gave a share to every scholarship athlete at Marquette? Even if the NCAA would put aside the amateurism issue that would prevent such payments, I would think that Title IX would probably require everyone to get paid. Not sure, though.
Quote from: warrior07 on June 20, 2013, 12:36:28 PM
And that would be a problem, why? If the market can't support those people, others shouldn't be forced to subsidize. Same goes for entertainment as it does for college athletics.
As I've said before, there is no such thing a truly free market in this country. It's a facade...a fairy tale.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 20, 2013, 02:03:28 PM
How much would each athlete get if you gave a share to every scholarship athlete at Marquette? Even if the NCAA would put aside the amateurism issue that would prevent such payments, I would think that Title IX would probably require everyone to get paid. Not sure, though.
If every scholarship player for D1 mens basketball and D1-A football was to receive a mere $2,000/year, that would cost the NCAA just under $25 million.
I think the $2K figure is quite conservative, and this would probably have to extend to other sports as well.
Quote from: WarriorInDC on June 20, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
If every scholarship player for D1 mens basketball and D1-A football was to receive a mere $2,000/year, that would cost the NCAA just under $25 million.
I think the $2K figure is quite conservative, and this would probably have to extend to other sports as well.
I get a slightly larger number, but only if counting scholarship players. Next question would be if all players need to be paid on those teams. The biggest question is whether you could contain it to just those two sports and those two divisions....remember DII is scholarship, as is DI-AA for football. If you have to offer payment for all sports, now the numbers start to add up fairly quickly.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 20, 2013, 12:27:27 PM
Have any of you people ever heard of a market economy? It aint morals folks... it's the market. Cut Buzz's salary by $1 million and see how fast Hiroshima happens and he's on his way to the University of Texas.
Why do you think the Big East as we knew it is gone? Market economy folks. Those football schools get paid more playing with football schools rather than basketball specialists.
Let's face it, as much as those morons running universities today want to argue about morals, costs and benefits, they're capitalists, just like I am. They're following the Gordon Gecko belief, "Greed is Good!" Their fight against the O'Bannon lawsuit is designed to protect the goose laying the golden eggs. Paying athletes means change and means the gold gets distributed wider and less favorably.
Workers of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWs2beF6fT13sZzk0d7XQCkKHTbqZSn87ugwwNhJ4Km5PoSuAFzQ)
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 20, 2013, 10:18:26 AM
A head coach's salary is a small piece of a program's operating expenses. It's an easy thing to get people all freaked out about, but whether you're paying a guy $1 million or $2 million to coach.. that's not going to cure your expense problem.
But cutting badminton is?
Quote from: TJ on June 20, 2013, 03:59:07 PM
But cutting badminton is?
Stick to the topic. This is irrelevant to anything I've said.
MU Sports Law Institute weighs in
http://www.nj.com/college-basketball/index.ssf/2013/06/ed_obannons_lawsuit_against_ncaa_could_have_landmark_implications.html
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 20, 2013, 06:00:38 PM
Stick to the topic. This is irrelevant to anything I've said.
I was connecting the whole stream of quotes and you probably had long since forgotten the first two, so here is the full context:
QuoteQuote from: Terror Skink on June 20, 2013, 09:05:32 AM
New York Times article this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/sports/high-stakes-games-critical-step-for-suit-seeking-payment-for-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
Some of the emails referenced express a lot of concern about the use of the likenesses in the video games, but they were talked down by the people who wanted to maximize the revenue.
Personally when I read statements like this, I want to throw up:
"If athletes were to receive a portion of the television money they help generate, college sports could be irreparably harmed, according to a series of written statements filed with the court by Delany and other college and conference executives."
"Irreparably harmed???" Seriously? Stop the hyperbole.
QuoteQuote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 20, 2013, 09:50:40 AM
He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund. Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc. The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports. Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere. In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas. I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).
QuoteQuote from: MU82 on June 20, 2013, 10:13:12 AM
The cynic could say that every football and basketball player could receive decent compensation if paid for by the head coaches in those two sports who make absurd money. Coach pay has spiraled out of control in just the last couple of decades.
QuoteQuote from: Jay Bee on June 20, 2013, 10:18:26 AM
A head coach's salary is a small piece of a program's operating expenses. It's an easy thing to get people all freaked out about, but whether you're paying a guy $1 million or $2 million to coach.. that's not going to cure your expense problem.
Chicos said that money to pay student athletes would have to come from somewhere indicating that cuts would have to be made to non-revenue sports.
MU82 was saying that instead of paying for it by cutting non-revenue sports the coach's absurdly high salaries could be cut instead.
You said that coach salaries are a drop in the bucket wouldn't be a large enough cuts.
So I asked... cutting Badminton would be? What could be done if cutting the largest salary at most universities wouldn't be enough?
I know that you probably weren't thinking in this context when you made your statement about coach salaries being small compared to the full budget. I don't necessarily disagree with you either - outside the top 50, how much are the other 100+ basketball coaches really making? However, your example was $1 million in savings - that could go a long way towards preventing a lot of other budget cuts.
Ok here's an idea for dealing with the O'Bannon legal concern:
1) For valuable consideration, the intercollegiate athlete provides the university with raw materials for entertainment and public relations/marketing.
2) For valuable consideration, the intercollegiate athlete allows the university and its agent, the NCAA, to use his or her likeness forever.
3) For his or her services, the university provides valuable consideration to the intercollegiate athlete in the form of education, housing, nourishment and certain ancillary support necessary to complete the education (aka, books and supplies).
Is not the exchange between the university and the intercollegiate athlete a barter transaction? If your employer paid you with a non-cash good or service for your work and you did not pay taxes on it, would not the Internal Revenue Service be knocking on your door, perhaps with an indictment for tax evasion? Of course they would!
In addition, the intercollegiate athlete must meet certain job requirements, such as training, showing up for class, adhering to a code of conduct and meeting minimum proficiency standards. Sounds an awful lot like the intercollegiate athlete is an employee of his or her university!
All you liberals reading this -- including you liberal university administrators -- ought to be excited at the thought of both the federal and state government taxing the intercollegiate athlete. And, requiring payment of Social Security taxes. Oh, but where other than the university would an athlete get the cash to make these tax payments?
It sounds as if the NCAA is a confederation of universities banded together with the goal of, among other things, limiting the negotiation power and ultimate compensation of the intercollegiate athlete. In America, we call this a monopoly and it has been illegal (except for Major League Baseball) since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act became law in the early 1900s.
Go get 'em Ed O'Bannon!!!
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 08:24:23 AM
Ok here's an idea for dealing with the O'Bannon legal concern:
1) For valuable consideration, the intercollegiate athlete provides the university with raw materials for entertainment and public relations/marketing.
2) For valuable consideration, the intercollegiate athlete allows the university and its agent, the NCAA, to use his or her likeness forever.
3) For his or her services, the university provides valuable consideration to the intercollegiate athlete in the form of education, housing, nourishment and certain ancillary support necessary to complete the education (aka, books and supplies).
Is not the exchange between the university and the intercollegiate athlete a barter transaction? If your employer paid you with a non-cash good or service for your work and you did not pay taxes on it, would not the Internal Revenue Service be knocking on your door, perhaps with an indictment for tax evasion? Of course they would!
In addition, the intercollegiate athlete must meet certain job requirements, such as training, showing up for class, adhering to a code of conduct and meeting minimum proficiency standards. Sounds an awful lot like the intercollegiate athlete is an employee of his or her university!
All you liberals reading this -- including you liberal university administrators -- ought to be excited at the thought of both the federal and state government taxing the intercollegiate athlete. And, requiring payment of Social Security taxes. Oh, but where other than the university would an athlete get the cash to make these tax payments?
It sounds as if the NCAA is a confederation of universities banded together with the goal of, among other things, limiting the negotiation power and ultimate compensation of the intercollegiate athlete. In America, we call this a monopoly and it has been illegal (except for Major League Baseball) since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act became law in the early 1900s.
Go get 'em Ed O'Bannon!!!
+1
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 08:24:23 AM
It sounds as if the NCAA is a confederation of universities banded together with the goal of, among other things, limiting the negotiation power and ultimate compensation of the intercollegiate athlete. In America, we call this a monopoly and it has been illegal (except for Major League Baseball) since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act became law in the early 1900s.
Go get 'em Ed O'Bannon!!!
I'm anything but a liberal, but your case precedent doesn't apply here. These are not employees, unlike your examples. Now, that might be what they argue, in fact I'm sure they will, but we've been down this road before. I thought the comments from the Sports Law attorney at MU helped to clarify this as well.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 21, 2013, 09:02:27 AM
I'm anything but a liberal, but your case precedent doesn't apply here. These are not employees, unlike your examples. Now, that might be what they argue, in fact I'm sure they will, but we've been down this road before. I thought the comments from the Sports Law attorney at MU helped to clarify this as well.
They may not be employees, but a monopolistic entity does work hard to limit their negotiation power and compensation. It's hard to argue against that - I don't think the courts are going to buy the "go to Europe if you don't like it" argument.
The NCAA will probably win overall using their "non-profit"/"protecting student athletes" argument, but the above will remain true.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 08:24:23 AM
It sounds as if the NCAA is a confederation of universities banded together with the goal of, among other things, limiting the negotiation power and ultimate compensation of the intercollegiate athlete. In America, we call this a monopoly and it has been illegal (except for Major League Baseball) since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act became law in the early 1900s.
Go get 'em Ed O'Bannon!!!
Actually, this is not called a monopoly. A monopoly is one source providing one service to all within the market with no other options for the buyers to go to. What this could maybe be called is a cartel, in which multiple sources band together for bid rigging, price fixing, etc.
What you fail to consider is each school's education and other services (including reputation of sports programs) carry different values. The volleyball player who gets a full-ride scholarship to Boise State has less value received compared to the field hockey player who gets a full-ride scholarship to Harvard. Additionally, those players who are more qualified (both academically and athletically) have more choices. The basketball player who wants to make the NBA has a choice to attend UWM or Marquette will more likely choose MU as there is more value perceived there (in other threads we talk about the reputation of MU players such as Butler, Crowder, Wes, etc. that could help Vander get drafted).
Since each program and school has different values for the education, prestige, reputation, etc. that they provide, then there really is no bid rigging or price fixing occurring is there? The players, if they are qualified (again athletically and/or academically), will have other options at other schools that provide different levels of value.
That said, I really dont think the relationship between school and "student-athlete" can be considered an employee-employer relationship at all. A similar case could then be made for students who receive academic scholarships as they are given valuable consideration in the form of education, books, etc. but they also provide the school valuable consideration in the form of research, academic status, recruiting, etc. Additionally, they also have to maintain certain grade requirements.
The one part of O'Bannon's argument I do think carries weight is the use of the likeness after school (graduation or leaving early). Using images and the name of the "student-athlete" after school should be ok as long as the images were taken while the "student-athlete" was in school. But licensing the likeness of the "student-athlete" should be downright illegal.
Quote from: WarriorInDC on June 21, 2013, 09:26:16 AM
What you fail to consider is each school's education and other services (including reputation of sports programs) carry different values.
I am very much aware of the different values. But there is a way around this. It is called FASB ASC 820, or a valuation standard used in public accounting. ASC 820 dictates a hieraerchy of values. Since the price of a Marquette education is a published commodity (aka, tuition card), that price becomes a Level 1 value usable for financial reporting and tax purposes. Same for room, board, books and ancillary supplies. Yeah, my W-2 from Marquette will look different than a W-2 from UW-Superior!
As to the broader question of a Marquette educational value versus other schools, poppycock as well. When I was in college, UNLV was a national power in basketball and a party school in everything else. Their tuition was different than our's as was the likely value of their education (unless you wanted to deal cards in a casino).
As to the question of relative value and not fixing prices, are you kidding me? Schools act as a cartel (and your term is probably better than mine though I think the NCAA does exhibit legal monopolistic practices) and have conspired to limit the cash compensation of a student athlete to nothing. Without the cartel, the student athlete could negotiate terms of his compensation and use of his likeness.
This is where I have a serious problem because I do think schools, including Marquette, exploit their student athletes by not paying them allowing them to negotiate the terms of the use of their services and their likenesses.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 20, 2013, 01:59:59 PM
Yes, and largely I agree with a market economy, but not for all things. It's never that simple. Should the NFL have a market economy and no revenue sharing so the Dallas Cowboys, NY Giants, and a few others get 80% of the revenues? What would happen to competition? Why are the Bengals getting the same split of the television pie despite the Cowboys having much better tv ratings? People watch the Cowboys, not the Bengals....in a market economy they would be the benefactors not every team.
Hey Chicos, try this out: BECAUSE THEY AGREED TO IT! And, for the record, the NFL has had a mixed bag on monopolistic practices. Certainly the American Football League proved the NFL is not a monopoly. That renegade football league ended up merging with the NFL in 1968.
When you invest in a NFL franchise, you voluntarily agree to certain rules and regulations. If you don't like it, there's Canada or you can start your own football league. The USFL and XFL are proof of that. Oh, and yes, I know of the $1.00 anti-trust award the NFL lost to the USFL!
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 09:46:46 AM
I am very much aware of the different values. But there is a way around this. It is called FASB ASC 820, or a valuation standard used in public accounting. ASC 820 dictates a hieraerchy of values. Since the price of a Marquette education is a published commodity (aka, tuition card), that price becomes a Level 1 value usable for financial reporting and tax purposes. Same for room, board, books and ancillary supplies. Yeah, my W-2 from Marquette will look different than a W-2 from UW-Superior!
As to the broader question of a Marquette educational value versus other schools, poppycock as well. When I was in college, UNLV was a national power in basketball and a party school in everything else. Their tuition was different than our's as was the likely value of their education (unless you wanted to deal cards in a casino).
As to the question of relative value and not fixing prices, are you kidding me? Schools act as a cartel (and your term is probably better than mine though I think the NCAA does exhibit legal monopolistic practices) and have conspired to limit the cash compensation of a student athlete to nothing. Without the cartel, the student athlete could negotiate terms of his compensation and use of his likeness.
This is where I have a serious problem because I do think schools, including Marquette, exploit their student athletes by not paying them allowing them to negotiate the terms of the use of their services and their likenesses.
Ok, so you threw out a FASB reference but how does that really apply here? The point is the value being received for each "student-athlete" is different from school to school. So therefore how is the price-fixing occurring here? There are different values across the board. So I guess the top-limit of the possible compensation a "student-athlete" could receive is $240,000 (taken from Forbes most expensive colleges) of tuition + 4 years of room and board (depends on the city and school facilities - AGAIN DIFFERENCE OF VALUE - and this can be extended up to 6 years as in Otule's case) + quality of athletic facilities.
And in your example of UNLV vs. Marquette, you fail to notice the difference. When UNLV was a powerhouse, MU was not. Therefore those basketball players deciding to attend UNLV over MU may not have received a higher value for their education, but the value they received from the basketball program was much greater.
In the same regard, the basketball player who decides to attend MU and receive an engineering degree is getting their value from an academic and athletic standpoint. But the basketball player who attends Georgetown and receive a government policy degree receives their value from both an academic and athletic standpoint. The point here is while the monetary value of the actual tuition may have actual figures, the value they provide to the "student-athlete" does not actually reflect that figure. Especially when you then factor in location, family history, academic program, etc.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 09:56:15 AM
When you invest in a NFL franchise, you voluntarily agree to certain rules and regulations. If you don't like it, there's Canada or you can start your own football league. The USFL and XFL are proof of that. Oh, and yes, I know of the $1.00 anti-trust award the NFL lost to the USFL!
When you accept an athletic scholarship, you voluntarily agree to certain rules and regulations. If you don't like it, there's Europe or you can start your own amateur / semi-pro league.
Quote from: WarriorInDC on June 21, 2013, 10:11:03 AM
Ok, so you threw out a FASB reference but how does that really apply here? The point is the value being received for each "student-athlete" is different from school to school.
And in your example of UNLV vs. Marquette, you fail to notice the difference. When UNLV was a powerhouse, MU was not.
For brevity, I reduced your quote to core issues. My response is this:
1) My initial idea was to tax student athletes because their scholarships are compensation for services rendered. If you buy into the NCAA crapline that the students are gaining an education, then the education has value and should be taxed. And, yes, I do believe that athletes are employees. The purpose of ASC 820 is to establish a fair value (or fair market value for tax purposes) and ASC 820 encompasses a widely accepted standard for valuation.
2) They are a monopoly. There is a conspiracy among major American universities to constrict the value received to a barter transaction. A student athlete such as Mr. O'Bannon cannot negotiate with a school to deal with specific needs and wants. That's not how our country works in the 21st century.
3) I take it you were not alive in 1977. The Final Four that year was North Carolina, North Carolina-Charlotte, UNLV and Marquette. Guess who won!
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 09:56:15 AM
Hey Chicos, try this out: BECAUSE THEY AGREED TO IT! And, for the record, the NFL has had a mixed bag on monopolistic practices. Certainly the American Football League proved the NFL is not a monopoly. That renegade football league ended up merging with the NFL in 1968.
When you invest in a NFL franchise, you voluntarily agree to certain rules and regulations. If you don't like it, there's Canada or you can start your own football league. The USFL and XFL are proof of that. Oh, and yes, I know of the $1.00 anti-trust award the NFL lost to the USFL!
Correct....are you saying when a high school kid accepts a scholarship he isn't also agreeing to certain terms and conditions? I believe the student athlete does. No gun to his or her head that they have to go to college.
Quote from: LittleMurs on June 20, 2013, 10:07:34 AM
Do what big business says (and the NCAA is big business) or leave the country. Umm, sounds more like Germany in the 1930s than the land of the free and the home of the brave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 11:04:03 AM
For brevity, I reduced your quote to core issues. My response is this:
1) My initial idea was to tax student athletes because their scholarships are compensation for services rendered. If you buy into the NCAA crapline that the students are gaining an education, then the education has value and should be taxed. And, yes, I do believe that athletes are employees. The purpose of ASC 820 is to establish a fair value (or fair market value for tax purposes) and ASC 820 encompasses a widely accepted standard for valuation.
2) They are a monopoly. There is a conspiracy among major American universities to constrict the value received to a barter transaction. A student athlete such as Mr. O'Bannon cannot negotiate with a school to deal with specific needs and wants. That's not how our country works in the 21st century.
3) I take it you were not alive in 1977. The Final Four that year was North Carolina, North Carolina-Charlotte, UNLV and Marquette. Guess who won!
The crapline that students are getting an education? Many of these kids ARE getting an education, so why is this a crapline? Take a step back for a moment and think of the 347 DI basketball teams, including the 250 that most people don't know about. Those kids are going to class (usually), earning degrees, preparing for the real world. Now, we certainly all know about high profile athletics and the kids jumping to the pros, or not going to class, etc....but even then this is an exception.
I take exception to your broad statement that they aren't getting an education...some aren't, most are being educated in one way or another. Whether they get their degree or not, they are having to learn to prioritize, learning cognitive skills, etc.
In your other point, how are they constricting the value received? At Marquette, over 4 years they are having to not pay about $160K for the ability to play basketball AND get a degree AND likely use it as a springboard for a potentially lucrative career in Europe or the States. This is constricting their value?
Quote from: Pakuni on June 21, 2013, 12:28:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Like Willie Mays in the world Series...Great catch!
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 20, 2013, 02:03:28 PM
How much would each athlete get if you gave a share to every scholarship athlete at Marquette? Even if the NCAA would put aside the amateurism issue that would prevent such payments, I would think that Title IX would probably require everyone to get paid. Not sure, though.
Paying current players would be a slippery slope. There could not be a salary cap unless collectively bargained for. Kentucky would be the highest bidder...wait never mind ;D
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 11:04:03 AM
For brevity, I reduced your quote to core issues. My response is this:
1) My initial idea was to tax student athletes because their scholarships are compensation for services rendered. If you buy into the NCAA crapline that the students are gaining an education, then the education has value and should be taxed. And, yes, I do believe that athletes are employees. The purpose of ASC 820 is to establish a fair value (or fair market value for tax purposes) and ASC 820 encompasses a widely accepted standard for valuation.
2) They are a monopoly. There is a conspiracy among major American universities to constrict the value received to a barter transaction. A student athlete such as Mr. O'Bannon cannot negotiate with a school to deal with specific needs and wants. That's not how our country works in the 21st century.
3) I take it you were not alive in 1977. The Final Four that year was North Carolina, North Carolina-Charlotte, UNLV and Marquette. Guess who won!
1) So do you also think that students who receive full-time scholarships are also "employees"? They receive value (education) and provide value back to the school as well (academic prestige, research, recruiting, etc.).
2) Again, not a monopoly, a cartel. And again, the value being received varies from university to university. If a university wants to provide more value, then they can invest in better athletic facilities, provide better housing options, boost their academic and athletic profile. The student is not limited to where they can or cannot go.
3) No I was not alive in 1977. And yes I do realize that MU won the championship that year. However, I did not know UNLV was in it as MU did not play them. I thought you were referring to the late 80's/early 90's UNLV. My bad.
Here's another thought. Should the MU band members also be getting paid? How about the cheerleaders and dance team? They are after all, providing entertainment to the fans during the games. And they are shown on TV quite often. They should be compensated as well, no?
I would also assume that we are also only going to tax those players that receive scholarships right? As those are the only ones receiving compensation. So then what happens to those walkon players that do not receive scholarships? They are still providing a service to the university. For those that don't play a minute, they are preparing the others in practice day in and day out. For those that do play, there is entertainment provided for fans and TV.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 09:46:46 AM
I am very much aware of the different values. But there is a way around this. It is called FASB ASC 820, or a valuation standard used in public accounting. ASC 820 dictates a hieraerchy of values. Since the price of a Marquette education is a published commodity (aka, tuition card), that price becomes a Level 1 value usable for financial reporting and tax purposes. Same for room, board, books and ancillary supplies. Yeah, my W-2 from Marquette will look different than a W-2 from UW-Superior!
I'm afraid your grasp of tax law vs. ASC 820 is not strong.
Quote from: Jay Bee on June 21, 2013, 01:25:14 PM
I'm afraid your grasp of tax law vs. ASC 820 is not strong.
Let me see if I got this right.
You are telling me that a direct quote from a tuition card or pamplet than Marquette uses for charging students tuition is not a Level 1 valuation.
That in a tax matter where you were debating the value of consideration received (aka, a year's tuition plus room and board plus the cost of ancillary expenses), the IRS would not use the published tuition rate of Marquette University, the published cost of room and board and the direct costs of books and supplies charged at the book store as the basis for levying a tax?
I think we could debate Level 1 or Level 2 or Level 3 until heck freezes over, but I promise you that these items are market measures of cost and represent in the eyes of the IRS the price at which a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither under duress and both with equal access to market information, would exchange a good or service.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 21, 2013, 02:04:24 PM
Let me see if I got this right.
You appeared to claim that the purpose of ASC 820 was to define a hierarchy for financial accounting fair value & tax fair market value. Further, the bolded comment suggests that US tax law follows the financial accounting hierarchy & valuation guidance (ie, you specifically bring Level 1 measurements into the "tax purposes@ discussion").
ASC 820 = financial reporting. Valuation & treatment for US tax can & often does differ.
Anyway, the O'Bannon case is crud.