MUScoop

Saw this story yesterday.  Two relevant passages:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9551518/ncaa-shuts-site-jersey-sales-says-hypocritical

NCAA president Mark Emmert on Thursday said college sports' governing body would stop selling individual jerseys and other team-related memorabilia on its website, calling the practice a "mistake" and admitting others might view it as hypocritical.

and

The NCAA is involved in multiple lawsuits regarding the use of names and likeness of college athletes. A group of current and former student-athletes, headed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, is attempting to have a federal lawsuit against the NCAA, Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co. classified as class action. The plaintiffs claim their names and likeness are being used illegally in live broadcasts and video games because they're not being compensated for the use.

----------

Ok, I'm going to make some statements here, tell where you agree and disagree ...

The O'Bannon lawsuit, if he wins, will be the biggest thing to happen to the NCAA since its founding.  

By saying athletes will be granted licensing rights essentially means they can get paid for their name on jerseys, in video games.  This paves the way for players to get paid for meet/greets, autographs, etc.  They can even do commercials (listening to MU games on the stream you hear Aurora health commercials a million times saying they can help you "get back in the game."  Otule would be the perfect pitchman, and put a few shekels in his pocket for his trouble.  How about Ox pitching Ford trucks for the dealers that advertise on MU games?)

If the NCAA loses the licensing case, the rest falls away and boosters will create a "player payment fund."  Again, O'Bannon wins and it will be impossible to stop this.

It also means big-time coaches lose.  If these rules did not exists, then a marquee player like Andrew Wiggins could sign multi-million clothing and shoe deals in high school.  And what if lesser player like Athletic DNA and/or Puma want to break in the market by throwing millions at Wiggins in High School (presumably so he wears their products all the way to the NBA all-star and NBA championship MVP years later).  Now he goes to Kansas, a Nike school.  Contractually he cannot play in Nike and Self has a deal to have his players wear Nike.  What gives here?  My guess is Self needs Wiggins more than Wiggins needs Self so Self's Nike deal crashes and he loses serious income.  The only reason coaches can get shoe deals now is because the players cannot.  Once plays can get their own deals (like NBA players), coaches lose.  They are then like NBA coaches that have no such deal.

Calipari is done.  Or, the one and done is over.  His players will legally get paid too much to stay so he cannot keep getting the same top class every year.  Remember when it is legal to pay players the open biding process means Kentucky players get many times more under an open deal then they are currently getting under the table.  And thy can get multi-year deals.   So top recruits cannot assume the current studs on the floor leave early.  They are getting paid too much to stay in college.

Again these are just thoughts, but I'm thinking the entire business model of the NCAA/ESPN/BCS/etc blows up if O'Bannon wins and players can not only get paid, but potentially get paid millions to play college basketball and football.

Where am I right and wrong?

The entire thing is a slippery slope.  It would be one thing for the NCAA to set up some sort of "Players Fund" and share licensing $$ with the players in video game, jersey sales, etc. 

However, the line between "paying someone to provide a signature" and "paying someone to come here...and sign a few things" is a thin one.  In the example above, what if the Ford dealer above is a booster?  What if he meets the player during the recruiting process and says "Hey, if you come here I will sign you to do a commercial for $25,000."

Perhaps the NCAA could create a rule that allows players to earn up to $10,000 annually off their likeness.  They could do commercials, autograph signings, etc. but have it under the regulation of the NCAA and monitored by the athletic departments.  I wouldn't have much of a problem with that.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 09, 2013, 12:02:46 PM

Where am I right and wrong?

 1. If the NCAA loses the O'Bannon case, it seems to me that the NCAA would likely stop licensing the names and likenesses of student-athletes while continuing the ban on the student-athletes doing it themselves.  The NCAA sees a drop in income without giving allowing SA's the chance to pick up the income themselves.  The NCAA could even have SA's give up their licensing rights to the NCAA in the LOI.  Emmert's statement that using SA's likenesses was a "mistake" makes the NCAA use of student-athletes likenesses based on a grant of this right to the NCAA in the LOI unlikely.  Evidently, the NCAA has some awareness that they may be opening the door for the SA's to earn their own income, if they're not careful.

 2. I don't see how the way would be paved for players to do meet and greets, sign autographs, or do commercials for cash.

 3. Even if SA's have the right to make money off their name as high schoolers (including shoe contracts), they still almost certainly have to deal with high school athletic associations prohibitions against professionalism.

 4. Calipari would not be done.  Top players are not likely to earn enough from outside sources of income to keep them from pursuing the far higher income to be had from a salary and greater outside income opportunities they would have as pros.

So be it. NCAA's so called 'amateurism' has been a sham for years and everybody knows it.

Personally, I don't think the whole Jay Bilas jersey thing, or more specifically, the NCAA's reaction to it is getting anywhere near the attention or coverage it warrants. That is  a huge story, exposing in a very concrete way what many (myself included) have been complaining about for years, with the NCAA now more or less admitting to it.

If the result of all that was pointed out above is a minor (though still significant) tweak that allows players to get their piece of the pie, great. If the result is a full on move to a free market system, and it means the end of college athletics as we know it, as I said, so be it. It will save me from the admittedly irreconcilable position of criticizing the system on the one hand, all the while continuing to support it with my money and attention on the other. It's professional sports. Time for the NCAA to stop pretending otherwise.

This case is a slippery slope.  A lot of students not just athletes end up doing a grant of rights to the University, where the university profits off their name, likeness and work product (work for hire).  Can every student that is portrayed in the 'University' commercials sue for using their name or likeness, since they are never asked for permission (part of the grant of rights).

I agree with Murs, that if they do lose, they will just quit using the names and likenesses.  Out of curiosity, when did they start using the athletes names in video games?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 09, 2013, 12:02:46 PM
Calipari is done.  Or, the one and done is over.  His players will legally get paid too much to stay so he cannot keep getting the same top class every year.  Remember when it is legal to pay players the open biding process means Kentucky players get many times more under an open deal then they are currently getting under the table.  And thy can get multi-year deals.   So top recruits cannot assume the current studs on the floor leave early.  They are getting paid too much to stay in college.

It won't end one and done, because that's an NBA rule. If players can start getting endorsement deals, I would have to figure that the contracts would have bonuses for NBA draft positioning, right? Would a player like Vander Blue stay in school because he was getting a bit of money from sponsorships of some kind and said deals gave him bonuses for being a top 5/top 15/first round/second round pick?

My understanding of the O'Bannon case is he is arguing players have the right to their likeness and earn money off it.  If the court rules O'Bannon is correct, it doesn't matter what the NCAA says.  The court said I can sell my likeness and license my name for cash (on jerseys), the NCAA is shut out of the process.

My personal time (meet/greet) and signature (paid for autographs) are just an extension of my "likeness", as is my voice and image (doing Ford commercials).  That's why these will fall soon after if O'Bannon wins.  If the court rules as I understand, Pandora's box is open and the NCAA cannot close it ... the court is arguing it is illegal from them to close it.

That's why I said this could change the NCAA in ways we cannot understand.  They become professional athletes and the higest bidder wins.

Quote from: Brewtown Andy on August 09, 2013, 01:27:00 PM
It won't end one and done, because that's an NBA rule. If players can start getting endorsement deals, I would have to figure that the contracts would have bonuses for NBA draft positioning, right? Would a player like Vander Blue stay in school because he was getting a bit of money from sponsorships of some kind and said deals gave him bonuses for being a top 5/top 15/first round/second round pick?

If Vander had deals that made him, say $100k a year (likeness deals, jersey deals, commercials, meet/greets, autograph signing session, etc.), then yes, his agent would have advised him to stay as going to the NBA would be a money losing deal.

Oh, and if O'Bannon wins, the other thing that will fall is the ban on Agents.  Players will be signing with IMG (or Jay-Z) in high School to represent them in the recruiting process.  Like I said above, if O'Bannon wins, as O'Bannon is arguing, everything changes.

As for the jerseys, couldn't the NCAA just ban putting player names on the jerseys and not have to deal with that portion of the problem at all.

Quote from: tommyc6 on August 09, 2013, 03:06:58 PM
As for the jerseys, couldn't the NCAA just ban putting player names on the jerseys and not have to deal with that portion of the problem at all.

They don't have the name on them.

The problem was that if you went to the NCAA store and searched on a name, then the right jersey came up.

Gotcha.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 09, 2013, 03:00:15 PM
My understanding of the O'Bannon case is he is arguing players have the right to their likeness and earn money off it.  If the court rules O'Bannon is correct, it doesn't matter what the NCAA says.  The court said I can sell my likeness and license my name for cash (on jerseys), the NCAA is shut out of the process.

I'm not following the case...but even if the court said that O'Bannon has the exclusive right to sell his likeness, it wouldn't mean that the NCAA would have to allow him to play, does it?  Players have been prevented from playing in the NCAA for years of they're deemed not to be "amateurs," so it would seem that the NCAA would only have to amend its definition to make it clear that you're no longer an amateur if you've made money selling your likeness.  In essence telling O'Bannon -- "go ahead, sell your likeness...but you aren't playing at UCLA if you do."

Seems like the only change would be that others can't sell or use the likeness until the player is gone....

If players are allowed to make a certain amount using their likeness, etc whose going to ensure they don't make more than Sultan's example of $10,000, the NCAA??  They have a hard enough time as it is running themselves.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 09, 2013, 03:00:15 PM
My understanding of the O'Bannon case is he is arguing players have the right to their likeness and earn money off it.  If the court rules O'Bannon is correct, it doesn't matter what the NCAA says.  The court said I can sell my likeness and license my name for cash (on jerseys), the NCAA is shut out of the process.

My personal time (meet/greet) and signature (paid for autographs) are just an extension of my "likeness", as is my voice and image (doing Ford commercials).  That's why these will fall soon after if O'Bannon wins.  If the court rules as I understand, Pandora's box is open and the NCAA cannot close it ... the court is arguing it is illegal from them to close it.

That's why I said this could change the NCAA in ways we cannot understand.  They become professional athletes and the higest bidder wins.

You are taking this further than it will go.  Everyone has a right to their name already.  

The O'Bannon case is about using an avatar that *looks* like O'Bannon...without actually referring to the player by name.  If he wins, it will mean payouts, but it isn't going to substantially change NCAA rules.  The issue is that the NCAA earns $$$ from the likeness...but it doesn't mean that the SA can now use their likeness to earn $$ and break NCAA rules in the process.

For instance, this isn't all of the sudden going to make it OK for Johnny Manziel to sign autographs.  He still is bound by the rules of the NCAA.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on August 09, 2013, 03:14:52 PM
I'm not following the case...but even if the court said that O'Bannon has the exclusive right to sell his likeness, it wouldn't mean that the NCAA would have to allow him to play, does it?  Players have been prevented from playing in the NCAA for years of they're deemed not to be "amateurs," so it would seem that the NCAA would only have to amend its definition to make it clear that you're no longer an amateur if you've made money selling your likeness.  In essence telling O'Bannon -- "go ahead, sell your likeness...but you aren't playing at UCLA if you do."

You got the jist of it.

The issue here is that the NCAA made money selling O'Bannon's likeness.

Quote from: Terror Skink on August 09, 2013, 03:18:26 PM

You are taking this further than it will go.  Everyone has a right to their name already.  

The O'Bannon case is about using an avatar that *looks* like O'Bannon...without actually referring to the player by name.  If he wins, it will mean payouts, but it isn't going to substantially change NCAA rules.  The issue is that the NCAA earns $$$ from the likeness...but it doesn't mean that the SA can now use their likeness to earn $$ and break NCAA rules in the process.

For instance, this isn't all of the sudden going to make it OK for Johnny Manziel to sign autographs.  He still is bound by the rules of the NCAA.

This is the AAU all over again from the 1970s.  They had similar rules to the NCAA about restricting income.  When they lost in court and all the rules came crashing down, the Olympics was then forced to accept professional athletes.

If O'Bannon wins, we will not be where I suggest the next day, but we will be headed down that road and wind up with pros playing in college.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 09, 2013, 03:00:15 PM
My understanding of the O'Bannon case is he is arguing players have the right to their likeness and earn money off it.  If the court rules O'Bannon is correct, it doesn't matter what the NCAA says.  The court said I can sell my likeness and license my name for cash (on jerseys), the NCAA is shut out of the process.

My personal time (meet/greet) and signature (paid for autographs) are just an extension of my "likeness", as is my voice and image (doing Ford commercials).  That's why these will fall soon after if O'Bannon wins.  If the court rules as I understand, Pandora's box is open and the NCAA cannot close it ... the court is arguing it is illegal from them to close it.

That's why I said this could change the NCAA in ways we cannot understand.  They become professional athletes and the higest bidder wins.

I don't see how this could possibly transpire as you describe as it would have significant ramifications beyond NCAA sports, instances where case law is well documented.  

I'm not an attorney, so I don't understand all the details.  It may just require a change in how they write the LOI's.

The main thing I am referring to is graduate students, who, as I understand it, fall under work for hire laws.  That means they sign a document when they arrive indicating that any fruits of their labor, even if conducted outside the confines of the University, are University property.  That means an engineer working out of his basement that makes a discovery even remotely related to his studies does not own the rights to their work product.

Similarly, these grad students are prohibited from pursuing any additional work, even if it occurs in their freetime.  This is part of the stipulation of their LOI equivalent and is well supported by case law.

An athlete's likeness and marketing prowess is a direct result of their work product (a student athelete), thus the University and the NCAA can retain the right to that product.  Also, the University is well within its rights to stipulate that they can not participate in outside employment (i.e. marketing) as a part of their LOI.

The question is if this would require them to provide an additional stipend, if so, look for a minimal cost of living stipend ($2000 ish per semester) to be provided by the University/NCAA, paid for of course by the athletes likeness.

Good grief, some of you guys have no understanding of the background of this case and the specific issues (which have changed when the ambulance chaser Hausfeld needed to change the subject).

For what it is worth, the NCAA is where Major League Baseball was in 1973. There was a storm brewing -- the reserve clause -- and baseball could elect to either change its ways and regulate free agency and player movement or the courts could.

Major League Baseball put its head in the sand and the rest is history.

The NCAA is at the same crossroads. Either it acknowledges the O'Bannon case is a serious threat to its hegemony over college basketball and makes changes that are more favorable to college sports, or the athletes will do it for them. The NCAA may even win the O'Bannon case, but there is more coming behind it and inevitably the time date and place will come where someone finds a way to beat down the status quo.

In MLB it was Catfish Hunter followed closely by Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally. In basketball, it's Ed O'Bannon or maybe someone we haven't heard about. But be forewarned, the tide is turning and the NCAA sooner or later will be compelled to change. If it's smart, it grabs hold of the matter and regulates it. Otherwise, lookout!

Quote from: forgetful on August 09, 2013, 03:26:42 PM
I don't see how this could possibly transpire as you describe as it would have significant ramifications beyond NCAA sports, instances where case law is well documented.  

I'm not an attorney, so I don't understand all the details.  It may just require a change in how they write the LOI's.

The main thing I am referring to is graduate students, who, as I understand it, fall under work for hire laws.  That means they sign a document when they arrive indicating that any fruits of their labor, even if conducted outside the confines of the University, are University property.  That means an engineer working out of his basement that makes a discovery even remotely related to his studies does not own the rights to their work product.

Similarly, these grad students are prohibited from pursuing any additional work, even if it occurs in their freetime.  This is part of the stipulation of their LOI equivalent and is well supported by case law.

An athlete's likeness and marketing prowess is a direct result of their work product (a student athelete), thus the University and the NCAA can retain the right to that product.  Also, the University is well within its rights to stipulate that they can not participate in outside employment (i.e. marketing) as a part of their LOI.

The question is if this would require them to provide an additional stipend, if so, look for a minimal cost of living stipend ($2000 ish per semester) to be provided by the University/NCAA, paid for of course by the athletes likeness.

How much did Harvard make off of Facebook?  Zuckerberg used all their resources, students, got the name (Harvard dorms each issued a paper "facebook" to its residences where he got the name) and even the school itself to create it.  Last time I checked, Harvard was not the owner of Facebook.

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.

Ditto non-compete clauses.  Courts are very willing to water them down, or even eliminate them.

Back to our subject ...

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.

 8/08/2013 @ 9:30AM

The O'Bannon Case: A Golden Opportunity For College Sports Programs

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2013/08/08/the-obannon-case-a-golden-opportunity-for-college-sports-programs/

It's widely predicted that, if the plaintiffs prevail in the so-called "O'Bannon case," it will radically transform the culture of college athletic programs and may even spell the end of amateur sports as we know it. As one blogger put it, it will "blow the current model of revenue-sharing in major college athletics to kingdom come."

The case in question dates back to 2009 when former college athletes spearhead by UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and Arizona State University quarterback Samuel Keller filed class actions against the NCAA, video game manufacturer Electronic Arts (EA), and Collegiate Licensing Company, the leading collegiate trademark licensing/marketing firm, claiming their likenesses had been misappropriated without compensation.

The forecasts are not fanciful. A pro-plaintiff outcome would force a major concession on the NCAA and possibly lead to further revenue-sharing across the board in the years ahead. At the very least, a plaintiffs' win will breach the hitherto sacrosanct barrier against compensating athletes. Once breached, things could happen fast, as when free agency realigned the balance of power in professional sports overnight, creating successive generations of multi-millionaire utility infielders. If certified, the O'Bannon class would include thousands of claimants, including many star professionals, and exposure in the billions.

Equally to the point, what happens if the defense ultimately prevails? The answer lies not just in the impact of this one case, but in the climate of public opinion that surrounds it. Win or lose, O'Bannon and his co-plaintiffs have given the NCAA's critics a powerfully invigorated voice. The Internet swelled that voice to a din. Joe Nocera has gone on full-scale attack in a series of articles. Gregg Easterbrook is writing a book.

Big Ten Conference commissioner Jim Delany has predicted the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the defendants have already flinched a mite. Most recently, the NCAA severed ties to EA while Collegiate Licensing asked the judge to strike all allegations pertaining to products other than video games and game broadcasts. Especially if the case settles, the NCAA will need to shore up its fortifications against future claims that go beyond video marketing – product endorsements by athletes, for example, or competitive salary deals that were unthinkable a few years ago but are now deemed inevitable by critics like Nocera.

Settlement may not be an option for the defense if we believe O'Bannon himself, who avers he's not interested in a financial award but rather in "systemic change" he intends to pursue to the end. Meanwhile, recent court decisions can't be encouraging to the defense. In late July, for example, EA was dealt a blow when the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the use of the likenesses was not shielded by the First Amendment. The athletes' lawyer said that that defense "was one of their strongest," so he's now moving for summary judgment in the underlying case.

When, in May, the Third Circuit said in a case brought by former Rutgers University quarterback Ryan Hart that the defendant's First Amendment rights do pertain but could be trumped by the plaintiff's intellectual property rights, the court was implicitly affirming that the athletes actually have such rights. It's a point that likely resonates with the vast majority of college sports fans.

To be sure, the proverbial genie is out of the bottle in terms of public opinion, to a far greater extent than in past instances when the NCAA came under fire. On the one hand, scandals like Penn State have fueled perceptions that college sports in general are morally dysfunctional, while published articles are marshaling long lists of players and the specific injustices and abuses they've purportedly suffered.

"Certainly, in its day-to-day business, from enforcement to apparel sales, it seems that of late the NCAA cannot do anything right," says Timothy Liam Epstein, a partner at SmithAmundsen LLC and Chair of that firm's Sports Law Practice Group. As an example, Epstein notes the most recent controversy involving the now-disabled function on the NCAA online shop allowing customers to purchase a numbered, but not named, jersey of Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel.

On the other hand, as NCAA critics have strenuously argued, the public need not be swayed by schools crying poverty or by the argument that amateur status is necessary to maintain some sort of parity between programs – not when some colleges already pay their coaches millions while others can barely afford bus tickets for their recruiters.

The argument that the public appreciates amateur status, and that that has a lot to do with why they watch college sports in the first place, has more validity than NCAA critics allow. Only 27% of respondents to a Marist poll believe college athletes deserve to be paid beyond their scholarships. Yet it's a limited argument. More than anything else, the public appreciates fairness and equitability. They are quite aware, thank you, that college sports is big business; that some folks enjoy lavish profits because of the unpaid labor of others. If they resent overpaid professional athletes, that too is a question of equitability. People want athletes to get what they deserve: no more, no less.

The NCAA's problem is that its historic position has been compromised such that an ongoing groundswell of public opinion will likely encourage future litigation. It's one more example of how, in our society, some change can only be brought about by ambitious lawyers.

In this instance, there may also be powerful agents of change once those lawyers clear the path – namely, the schools themselves, some of which have reportedly questioned whether they even need the NCAA. "Many of the bylaws that frustrate the wealthiest schools are based on the NCAA's legislating competitive fairness – from what food schools can provide to student-athletes, to the amount of scholarships allowable on rosters," says Epstein.

"Perhaps the largest conferences will realize that they no longer need the NCAA to successfully function," he adds. "They could break off into a new association, possibly adding significant staffing to conference offices to handle logistical functions currently performed at the NCAA National Office."

At least the schools don't need to be NCAA mouthpieces. They can, as a communications strategy, underscore that they do not share the plantation mentality, a term that's been used to describe NCAA policy and practice.

In this effort, there's no need to pick an injudicious public fight. To the contrary, the schools can seize on every opportunity that the NCAA itself provides. For example, NCAA president Mark Emmert has already allowed colleges to offer four-year scholarships that in effect end the current abuse by which coaches can summarily cut athletes from the roster on an annual basis.

There are many ways for schools to differentiate themselves. It's not about perquisites; it's about basic terms of engagement that directly affect college and professional careers. Jim Delany – while no supporter of paying the athletes – talks about limits on the time athletes spend on sports, for example, as well as lifetime educational support for athletes who drop out or go pro early, but decide to return to college. Simply by vigorously supporting such ideas or by proposing alternatives, schools take leadership positions that won't be lost on the recruits they so aggressively scout.

It's a potentially transformative opportunity for which colleges throughout the country can thank Ed O'Bannon.

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.


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

Judge in Ed O'Bannon case cancels Sept. 5 hearing, rejects NCAA request

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/08/judge_in_ed_obannon_case_cance.html

The judge in the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit today canceled a Sept. 5 hearing and rejected the NCAA's request for an expedited case management conference, deciding instead to rule on several motions by the defendants through written filings.

With a certification decision nearing in a case involving the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses, the NCAA and co-defendants Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Company filed motions last week in response to the plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The NCAA and EA each sought from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken the opportunity to be dismissed from the case. CLC asked to have portions of the amended complaint dismissed and wants to remove four of the five active college players who joined the suit last month.

After EA's request, Wilken set a Sept. 5 hearing and pre-hearing filing dates. The NCAA sought to have the hearing Aug. 22 and cited inconsistencies between several dates in the case management schedule.

Wilken ordered the parties to file a joint status statement by Aug. 19. She noted that she ordered the parties at the June 20 certification hearing to discuss between themselves the remaining case management dates.
"The NCAA does not state whether it has tried to work with the other parties to resolve this or any other case management issues that it has identified," Wilken wrote today. "In their response, Antitrust Plaintiffs represent that the inconsistency has not been raised with them and that they would be amenable to making adjustments to address such problems."

At stake is whether Wilken certifies the suit as a class action. That would potentially make the NCAA liable for billions of dollars in damages if it lost the case at trial.

If a fund is ever set up, and I hope not, then it should be distributed after a player graduates.

General question for any MU Law graduates:

If Judge Wilken denies the suit class action status, but O'Bannon & Co. win at trial, what does that mean for any future suits brought by former SAs? Can it be deemed a class action by another judge at any time in future, or will some precedent have been set requiring future cases to be tried individually?

Quote from: barfolomew on August 10, 2013, 10:42:40 AM
General question for any MU Law graduates:

If Judge Wilken denies the suit class action status, but O'Bannon & Co. win at trial, what does that mean for any future suits brought by former SAs? Can it be deemed a class action by another judge at any time in future, or will some precedent have been set requiring future cases to be tried individually?

Wilken's decision should hold weight with other trial judges, but won't bind them as to their own decisions.  However, as soon as Wilken's decision is appealed (and it will be appealed by whichever party loses it) other trial judges will have a precedent that they will have to follow at least in the circuit whose appellate court issued the appellate decision.  If a judge in another circuit decides differently and is upheld by his own circuit's appellate court, then you have a conflict between the circuits and likely fast track Supreme Court involvement.

I have no class action experience, but this sounds like a classic situation for use of a class action.

But, how does any of this affect Kentucky :o

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 05:17:19 AM
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.

Quote from: LittleMurs on August 10, 2013, 11:15:07 AM
 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.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 04:34:58 AM

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.  

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 04:34:58 AM
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.  

Quote from: barfolomew on August 10, 2013, 01:01:27 PM
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.

Quote from: The Equalizer on August 10, 2013, 01:25:46 PM
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.

Quote from: LittleMurs on August 10, 2013, 11:15:07 AM
 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.

Quote from: The Equalizer on August 10, 2013, 01:25:46 PM
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?

Quote from: The Equalizer on August 10, 2013, 01:25:46 PM
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.

Quote from: barfolomew on August 10, 2013, 01:01:27 PM
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.

Quote from: Terror Skink on August 10, 2013, 03:55:29 PM

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

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.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 08:12:15 PM
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

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 08:12:15 PM

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.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 08:12:15 PM
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.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 08:12:15 PM

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.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 08:12:15 PM
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'.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 08:27:20 PM
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.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 08:27:20 PM
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.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 10, 2013, 08:27:20 PM
 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.  

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.

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."

Quote from: Terror Skink on August 11, 2013, 08:51:56 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: LittleMurs on August 12, 2013, 08:30:21 AM
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.

Quote from: LittleMurs on August 10, 2013, 01:49:19 PM
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. 

Quote from: LittleMurs on August 12, 2013, 08:30:21 AM
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.

Quote from: forgetful on August 12, 2013, 09:37:16 AM
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.

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?

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 12, 2013, 11:14:09 AM
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.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 12, 2013, 11:29:48 AM
Years & years.

Plaintiffs keep changing their cries.

What the case will even be ABOUT is in question.

So really this thread should be more like Are college sports going to change during our lifetime in ways we don't understand?

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 12, 2013, 11:33:56 AM
So really this thread should be more like Are college sports going to change during our lifetime in ways we don't understand?

Well, people could decide to change their current ways today because of changes that they believe may come years down the line... proactive/reactive.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 12, 2013, 11:14:09 AM
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?

The judge is expected to rule on the class action status in the next month or so.  This is a big deal and if granted (many seem to think it will) the case will move forward court date of next summer (unless a pre-trial deal is struck before then).

As I already noted, change is coming. The NCAA can act with hubris or it can act rationally and reasonably.

An institution acting with hubris buries it head in the sand and acts as if nothing is changing. They think goodwill, history, public opinion and brand loyalty will carry the day. Baseball did that and guess what -- it gives them that ridiculous contract Albert Pujos signed with the California Angels.

An institution that recognizes change is afoot, manages changes and engages its shareholders and stakeholders in a positive discussion aimed at resolving a problem. It means colleges have to recognize the past is not a prologue for the future. It means if you don't find a way to share the revenue now, somebody is going to do it for you.

Best I can tell, the NCAA is hiding in its past and pretending the future is 1950. As a consequence, we're in for a rough ride and it's hard to say what this "all our tomorrows will equal our yesterdays" strategy will have on Marquette.

I'm not optimistic!

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 12, 2013, 10:15:51 AM
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.

If the courts insist on universities sharing TV revenue with athletes, I see state universities not complying.  They don't have to comply, they can just be sued for not complying (and rightfully so).  If the athletes sue, the state universities very well will claim sovereign immunity.

I can see if I can find it, but this is the strategy by some of the biggest state schools in regards to technology rights.  There is a recorded (and used to be freely available online) presentation of the head of intellectual property for a large state institution, explaining that hey sell IP rights and sign do not compete clauses.  They then inform their researchers (whose careers depend on extending the research) to ignore the do not compete clause, because if sued later they will claim sovereign immunity. 

I envision this same state institution (major sports player) to take the same tactic for sports.  Again, I don't think the O'bannon case will lead down this path.

Quote from: forgetful on August 12, 2013, 03:56:01 PM
If the courts insist on universities sharing TV revenue with athletes, I see state universities not complying.  They don't have to comply, they can just be sued for not complying (and rightfully so).  If the athletes sue, the state universities very well will claim sovereign immunity.

I can see if I can find it, but this is the strategy by some of the biggest state schools in regards to technology rights.  There is a recorded (and used to be freely available online) presentation of the head of intellectual property for a large state institution, explaining that hey sell IP rights and sign do not compete clauses.  They then inform their researchers (whose careers depend on extending the research) to ignore the do not compete clause, because if sued later they will claim sovereign immunity. 

I envision this same state institution (major sports player) to take the same tactic for sports.  Again, I don't think the O'bannon case will lead down this path.

Once the way to pay athletes has been cleared, lesser athletic schools with resources will use payments to make their program better.

So if Michigan and the B1G want to be high and mighty and keep all the revenues and the status quo, then eastern Michigan, central Michigan and/or the MVC will offer to players money, decent money.  The B1G will not survive this.

I also have no doubt the super-competitive cheaters of the SEC will have an arms race in out bidding each other for top talent.  Those that refuse to pay and claim sovereign immunity might as well cancel their programs.  It would be a suicide pact.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 12, 2013, 05:41:01 PM
Once the way to pay athletes has been cleared, lesser athletic schools with resources will use payments to make their program better.

So if Michigan and the B1G want to be high and mighty and keep all the revenues and the status quo, then eastern Michigan, central Michigan and/or the MVC will offer to players money, decent money.  The B1G will not survive this.

I also have no doubt the super-competitive cheaters of the SEC will have an arms race in out bidding each other for top talent.  Those that refuse to pay and claim sovereign immunity might as well cancel their programs.  It would be a suicide pact.

Either that or the state is suddenly going to pull some funding for certain schools. 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

Texas leads in merchandise royalties

For the eighth straight year, the University of Texas collected the most royalties of any college or university represented by the Collegiate Licensing Company, whose clients include all the major schools except Ohio State, Michigan State, University of Southern California and Oregon.

SEC schools dominated the top 10 in royalty rankings released by the company on Monday.

The University of Alabama came in second, followed by Kentucky (5), LSU (6), Florida (7), Georgia (8) and Arkansas (10), which broke the top 10 for the first time. Notre Dame (3), University of Michigan (4) and UNC (9) rounded out the top 10.

The list, which represented royalties on the $4.6 billion annual college merchandise business, reflects money collected by schools on sales of gear from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013.

Schools that saw a rise in the royalty rankings include Notre Dame, which went from ninth last season to third after playing in the BCS title game.

Texas A&M, thanks in part to an 11-2 season in its first year in the SEC and quarterback Johnny Manziel winning the Heisman Trophy, jumped from No. 19 to No. 12 over the past year, and University of Louisville moved from No. 32 last year to No. 25 thanks to the success of its championship men's basketball licensing program.

The biggest slide in merchandise royalties was Penn State, likely due to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Penn State dropped from 10 to 12 last year and fell seven more spots this year to No. 19.

Nike was the No. 1 apparel licensee among college teams, while EA Sports, whose college game is the subject of two current lawsuits brought by former players, was the top non-apparel licensee. Although the NCAA recently announced it would take its name off the game, CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games.

CLC is an affiliate of IMG College, which is owned by sports conglomerate IMG.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 12, 2013, 07:25:16 PM

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

Texas leads in merchandise royalties

For the eighth straight year, the University of Texas collected the most royalties of any college or university represented by the Collegiate Licensing Company, whose clients include all the major schools except Ohio State, Michigan State, University of Southern California and Oregon.

SEC schools dominated the top 10 in royalty rankings released by the company on Monday.

The University of Alabama came in second, followed by Kentucky (5), LSU (6), Florida (7), Georgia (8) and Arkansas (10), which broke the top 10 for the first time. Notre Dame (3), University of Michigan (4) and UNC (9) rounded out the top 10.

The list, which represented royalties on the $4.6 billion annual college merchandise business, reflects money collected by schools on sales of gear from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013.

Schools that saw a rise in the royalty rankings include Notre Dame, which went from ninth last season to third after playing in the BCS title game.

Texas A&M, thanks in part to an 11-2 season in its first year in the SEC and quarterback Johnny Manziel winning the Heisman Trophy, jumped from No. 19 to No. 12 over the past year, and University of Louisville moved from No. 32 last year to No. 25 thanks to the success of its championship men's basketball licensing program.

The biggest slide in merchandise royalties was Penn State, likely due to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Penn State dropped from 10 to 12 last year and fell seven more spots this year to No. 19.

Nike was the No. 1 apparel licensee among college teams, while EA Sports, whose college game is the subject of two current lawsuits brought by former players, was the top non-apparel licensee. Although the NCAA recently announced it would take its name off the game, CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games.

CLC is an affiliate of IMG College, which is owned by sports conglomerate IMG.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the O'bannon case.  Am I entitled to royalties for the apparel of every university I attended for the recognition I brought to the University.  If so, then every student is entitled to royalties.  And if every student is entitled to royalties, what is the difference between cutting them all a check and jacking up the tuitions vs. just using that money to reinvest in the University as a whole.

Quote from: forgetful on August 12, 2013, 08:58:21 PM
I'm not sure what this has to do with the O'bannon case.  Am I entitled to royalties for the apparel of every university I attended for the recognition I brought to the University.  If so, then every student is entitled to royalties.  And if every student is entitled to royalties, what is the difference between cutting them all a check and jacking up the tuitions vs. just using that money to reinvest in the University as a whole.

See the last highlighted part ... The biggest source of non-apparel royalty income is EA sports' licensing agreements.  The story mentions two lawsuits against EA sports.  One is O'Bannon.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 12, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
See the last highlighted part ... The biggest source of non-apparel royalty income is EA sports' licensing agreements.  The story mentions two lawsuits against EA sports.  One is O'Bannon.

The athletes have no claim to any income generated from University logos, I disagree with the claim to rights to their likeness, but at least understand the argument.

Quote from: forgetful on August 12, 2013, 10:43:06 PM
The athletes have no claim to any income generated from University logos, I disagree with the claim to rights to their likeness, but at least understand the argument.

Out of curiosity could you explain your disagreement? I mean lets say where you work makes a cartoon and uses a character that has all of your distinguishing features, your stereotypical clothes, etc and they make millions off of it.  Are you going to say that you wouldn't feel obligated to any of that money?

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 12, 2013, 11:11:05 PM
Out of curiosity could you explain your disagreement? I mean lets say where you work makes a cartoon and uses a character that has all of your distinguishing features, your stereotypical clothes, etc and they make millions off of it.  Are you going to say that you wouldn't feel obligated to any of that money?

First, no I would not feel obligated to any of that money.  I would have done nothing to earn it, the individual that made the cartoon in a manner that successfully drew in an audience that was willing to pay money for their product did everything, I was merely a subject of their creative endeavor.  Call me strange, but in that instance I did nothing to earn any proceeds and would not expect a dime. 

Just for the record, Universities have used my image in advertisements without my permission.  I have never and would never seek compensation for these instances.

As to why I disagree however, they signed documents granting their rights to the University.  In my opinion, as that is part of the NCAA student bylaws, they have relinquished their rights.  We'll let the courts iron out the details as I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a legal expert.  My legal opinion isn't worth diddley.

Quote from: forgetful on August 12, 2013, 10:43:06 PM
The athletes have no claim to any income generated from University logos, I disagree with the claim to rights to their likeness, but at least understand the argument.

EA sports uses the athletes likeness in its video games.  The athletes get nothing and the universities gets tens of millions in royalty income.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 06:44:46 AM
EA sports uses the athletes likeness in its video games.  The athletes get nothing and the universities gets tens of millions in royalty income.

Your article clearly states that "CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games".

But regardless, like I said above, I don't think they have a right to be paid for a cartoon appearance of themselves in a video game that they had no part in creating.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 06:44:46 AM
EA sports uses the athletes likeness in its video games.  The athletes get nothing and the universities gets tens of millions in royalty income.

Apparently a 4-year full ride adademic scholarship plus room & board is the new definition of "nothing."

Quote from: forgetful on August 13, 2013, 11:19:07 AM
Your article clearly states that "CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games".

But regardless, like I said above, I don't think they have a right to be paid for a cartoon appearance of themselves in a video game that they had no part in creating.

Here is the cover of the EA Sports NCAA 14 that was released July 9.

Denard Robinson got nothing for this.  Michigan is getting paid for this cover.

You think this is fair?

(http://web-vassets.ea.com/Assets/Resources/Others/NCAA14_homepage_athlete.png?cb=2013-06-06T22:04:23+0000)

Quote from: forgetful on August 13, 2013, 11:19:07 AM
Your article clearly states that "CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games".

But regardless, like I said above, I don't think they have a right to be paid for a cartoon appearance of themselves in a video game that they had no part in creating.

I don't quite understand your reasoning.  I mean according to law your likeness is protected and if someone doesn't have permission to use it and is making money using your likeness because your famous or whatnot then it would be considered you helping them make that money which you are then owed a portion of because they are using your fame to make that money.  

Quote from: The Equalizer on August 13, 2013, 11:58:18 AM
Apparently a 4-year full ride adademic scholarship plus room & board is the new definition of "nothing."

free ride at the school should not include selling a players image for money and giving him nothing.  See Denard Robinson in the post above.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 12:12:37 PM
Here is the cover of the EA Sports NCAA 14 that was released July 9.

Denard Robinson got nothing for this.  Michigan is getting paid for this cover.

You think this is fair?

(http://web-vassets.ea.com/Assets/Resources/Others/NCAA14_homepage_athlete.png?cb=2013-06-06T22:04:23+0000)

He's going to say no because Denard Robinson didn't help create the game.  

Quote from: The Equalizer on August 13, 2013, 11:58:18 AM
Apparently a 4-year full ride adademic scholarship plus room & board is the new definition of "nothing."

There should be an estimated value of the payments for say the video game added to the estimated value that the players bring in for playing ball minus room, food, books and tuition.  That's what players should get which would be just like them paying their way but still getting their fair cut of what they bring to the school. 

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 13, 2013, 12:20:09 PM
He's going to say no because Denard Robinson didn't help create the game.  

By his logic, Michael Jordan should get nothing for pitching Haines underwear as it is the garment workers that "created them."

Forgetful watch this video this is what college hoops 2k13 looks like you're going to tell me that even though the game used names, numbers, and likeness that it's ok?  (gotta get through the intro which is like 25seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCBXYxsOI7w

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 13, 2013, 12:23:05 PM
There should be an estimated value of the payments for say the video game added to the estimated value that the players bring in for playing ball minus room, food, books and tuition.  That's what players should get which would be just like them paying their way but still getting their fair cut of what they bring to the school.  

As a benchmark ... the Lions Matthew Stafford signed a new contract this offseason:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000216954/article/matthew-stafford-detroit-lions-reach-new-contract

NFL.com's Albert Breer, per two sources involved in the negotiations, reported Tuesday that the total value of the three-year extension for Stafford will be $53 million, putting his five-year haul at $76.5 million. Stafford will receive $41.5 million guaranteed and, according to ProFootballTalk.com, a $27.5 million signing bonus. The totals make sense. The extension pays Stafford nearly $18 million on average per season. That's roughly the same per-year average as Tony Romo. Not coincidentally, Stafford and Romo share the same agent.

So Stafford made about $60 million over four years AND he keeps the rights to his image and sells and makes a significant amount of money off it.

Now, if we assume that Denard Robinson and Michigan are MORE marketable than Stafford and the Lions, I would put Robinson's worth to Michigan, over his four year career, at $80 to $100 million.  Less $250,000 for four years of room and board, Michigan should pay home $79.75 to $99.75 million if they wanted to compensate him fairly.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 13, 2013, 12:34:05 PM
Forgetful watch this video this is what college hoops 2k13 looks like you're going to tell me that even though the game used names, numbers, and likeness that it's ok?  (gotta get through the intro which is like 25seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCBXYxsOI7w

Excellent find! 

MU keeps all the royalties off this and the players get zero.

If O'Bannon wins as a class action, all the players on last year's team will be owed money because of this game.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 12:40:12 PM
As a benchmark ... the Lions Matthew Stafford signed a new contract this offseason:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000216954/article/matthew-stafford-detroit-lions-reach-new-contract

NFL.com's Albert Breer, per two sources involved in the negotiations, reported Tuesday that the total value of the three-year extension for Stafford will be $53 million, putting his five-year haul at $76.5 million. Stafford will receive $41.5 million guaranteed and, according to ProFootballTalk.com, a $27.5 million signing bonus. The totals make sense. The extension pays Stafford nearly $18 million on average per season. That's roughly the same per-year average as Tony Romo. Not coincidentally, Stafford and Romo share the same agent.

So Stafford made about $60 million over four years AND he keeps the rights to his image and sells and makes a significant amount of money off it.

Now, if we assume that Denard Robinson and Michigan are MORE marketable than Stafford and the Lions, I would but Robinson's worth to Michigan, over his four year career, at $80 to $100 million.  Less $250,000 for four years of room and board, Michigan should pay home $79.75 to $99.75 million if they wanted to compensate him fairly.

I disagree that you can argue that Michigan is more marketable.  I mean look at the money the NFL makes vs B1G or NCAA brings in from football.  

In all fairness Michigan vs Lions might be one of the few unfair comparisons though. 

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 13, 2013, 12:44:10 PM
I disagree that you can argue that Michigan is more marketable.  I mean look at the money the NFL makes vs B1G or NCAA brings in from football.  

In all fairness Michigan vs Lions might be one of the few unfair comparisons though. 

Would you argue it is 75% as marketable?  If so then Robinson's fair value to Michigan is $60 to $80 million.  Is it 50%?  then $40 to $60 million.  Or 25%?  Then $20 to $40 million.

Even at 25%, tuition room and board is a meaningless rounding error.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 13, 2013, 12:34:05 PM
Forgetful watch this video this is what college hoops 2k13 looks like you're going to tell me that even though the game used names, numbers, and likeness that it's ok?  (gotta get through the intro which is like 25seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCBXYxsOI7w

The game didn't use names.  The individual downloaded the names/rosters from an independent site, not aligned with EA sports, the NCAA or any other organization. 

Again, I have no issue with it.  As I said, I have been used in commercials without being contacted first.  However, I did sign papers granting rights, so I have no issue with this.  Similarly, the players, in my opinion, have no rights here as they also signed them away.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 13, 2013, 12:34:05 PM
Forgetful watch this video this is what college hoops 2k13 looks like you're going to tell me that even though the game used names, numbers, and likeness that it's ok?  (gotta get through the intro which is like 25seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCBXYxsOI7w

Also see the end of the video when the coach of tOSU and MU shake hands.  They look nothing like Buzz and Thad Motta.  Why?  Because coaches own their images and their rate is took high for EA.  Players are a baragain as they licensing all of them cheaply.

So, why don't the universities own the coaches images like the players to make money for the institutions????

Quote from: forgetful on August 13, 2013, 12:51:08 PM
The game didn't use names.  The individual downloaded the names/rosters from an independent site, not aligned with EA sports, the NCAA or any other organization. 

So is that independent site breaking the law by using these images?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 12:54:22 PM
So is that independent site breaking the law by using these images?

As I already said, I have zero legal background sufficient to answer such a question, just provided my opinion and corollaries to things I do know a little about.

My guess would be yes, they are breaking the law.  They are attaching the players names (which could be a violation of their amateur status...therefore actual damages).

There have been no college basketball games EVEN MADE for xbox/ps3 since 2010 (NCAA 2010 was the last one).

The last 2k game was 2k8.

Stop making up lies!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 01:08:15 PM
There have been no college basketball games EVEN MADE for xbox/ps3 since 2010 (NCAA 2010 was the last one).

The last 2k game was 2k8.

Stop making up lies!!!!!!!!

Exactly.  And the reason there have been no college basketball games in 3-4 years is because EA Sports and 2K Sports won't take on the risk.  The threats of lawsuits and high price tag for licensing isn't worth the "small" revenue.  College Basketball games were never the highlight of sports gaming.  College Football, on the other hand, is a huge source of revenue for EA Sports, so they never gave that up, even though they've known for a while now that a storm has been brewing.

How much are players worth and what should they get paid?

WSJ story today

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579009000024241682.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

The Writing on the Wall for the NCAA

... This all feels like a prelude to a bigger show: Former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon's potentially earth-moving lawsuit against the NCAA, which argues that college sports' governing body has unjustly profited off of players' images, while denying players the same right.

...

The manicured hand behind the curtain, of course, is television, and the lucrative contracts it rewards for championships and tournaments, rearranging the college sports landscape for maximum attention and ratings. It is silly to maintain that stars don't factor into this economy; like a summer blockbuster, names are essential to move the merchandise, and there is as much star-making craftwork in college sports as there is on a studio lot. (Magazines don't put tradition and loyalty on the cover—they put Johnny Football.) A recent Journal story by Rachel Bachman and Ben Cohen cited a study by Joyce Julius & Associates, commissioned by Texas A&M itself, which found that Manziel helped generate $37 million in media exposure for the school last season. That is an astonishing feat. The system allows everyone a taste, except the athlete.

----------

above I said Denard Robinson value to Michigan over his four years was $80 to $100 million (for which he was paid $250k in tuition, room and board).  The bolded quote above suggests I might have been too low.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 02:02:07 PM
How much are players worth and what should they get paid?

WSJ story today

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579009000024241682.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

The Writing on the Wall for the NCAA

... This all feels like a prelude to a bigger show: Former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon's potentially earth-moving lawsuit against the NCAA, which argues that college sports' governing body has unjustly profited off of players' images, while denying players the same right.

...

The manicured hand behind the curtain, of course, is television, and the lucrative contracts it rewards for championships and tournaments, rearranging the college sports landscape for maximum attention and ratings. It is silly to maintain that stars don't factor into this economy; like a summer blockbuster, names are essential to move the merchandise, and there is as much star-making craftwork in college sports as there is on a studio lot. (Magazines don't put tradition and loyalty on the cover—they put Johnny Football.) A recent Journal story by Rachel Bachman and Ben Cohen cited a study by Joyce Julius & Associates, commissioned by Texas A&M itself, which found that Manziel helped generate $37 million in media exposure for the school last season. That is an astonishing feat. The system allows everyone a taste, except the athlete.

----------

above I said Denard Robinson value to Michigan over his four years was $80 to $100 million (for which he was paid $250k in tuition, room and board).  The bolded quote above suggests I might have been too low.

Fact of the matter is that if any of the athletes are injured, the next man up will generate exposure.  People don't watch college sports for the specific athletes name on the jersey.  They watch for the schools name on the front.  That is why, even though athletes leave at most every 4-6 years, people keep tuning in. 

Remove athlete x and the people keep watching.  So the value is in the school name, not the athlete, the school name has values because of the students, therefore the money should return to the school to improve the overall student experience (for athletes or non-athletes)

The individual athletes get exposure and name recognition, because of their association with the University.  We could flip this argument and discuss, the exposure value of playing for a blue-blood as far as it impacts career earnings.  If we look at that type of financial analysis, I think you will see that the athletes are far better compensated.

As far as Denard Robinson, if you went down the street and asked 50 people if they knew who he was, maybe one woulds say yes.  He does not have $80-100 million dollar value, his value is associated with the Michigan name.

Quote from: forgetful on August 13, 2013, 02:18:22 PM
Fact of the matter is that if any of the athletes are injured, the next man up will generate exposure.  People don't watch college sports for the specific athletes name on the jersey.  They watch for the schools name on the front.  That is why, even though athletes leave at most every 4-6 years, people keep tuning in. 

Remove athlete x and the people keep watching.  So the value is in the school name, not the athlete, the school name has values because of the students, therefore the money should return to the school to improve the overall student experience (for athletes or non-athletes)

The individual athletes get exposure and name recognition, because of their association with the University.  We could flip this argument and discuss, the exposure value of playing for a blue-blood as far as it impacts career earnings.  If we look at that type of financial analysis, I think you will see that the athletes are far better compensated.

As far as Denard Robinson, if you went down the street and asked 50 people if they knew who he was, maybe one woulds say yes.  He does not have $80-100 million dollar value, his value is associated with the Michigan name.

How is this different from the NFL?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 02:02:07 PM
How much are players worth and what should they get paid?

WSJ story today

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579009000024241682.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

The Writing on the Wall for the NCAA

... This all feels like a prelude to a bigger show: Former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon's potentially earth-moving lawsuit against the NCAA, which argues that college sports' governing body has unjustly profited off of players' images, while denying players the same right.

...

The manicured hand behind the curtain, of course, is television, and the lucrative contracts it rewards for championships and tournaments, rearranging the college sports landscape for maximum attention and ratings. It is silly to maintain that stars don't factor into this economy; like a summer blockbuster, names are essential to move the merchandise, and there is as much star-making craftwork in college sports as there is on a studio lot. (Magazines don't put tradition and loyalty on the cover—they put Johnny Football.) A recent Journal story by Rachel Bachman and Ben Cohen cited a study by Joyce Julius & Associates, commissioned by Texas A&M itself, which found that Manziel helped generate $37 million in media exposure for the school last season. That is an astonishing feat. The system allows everyone a taste, except the athlete.

----------

above I said Denard Robinson value to Michigan over his four years was $80 to $100 million (for which he was paid $250k in tuition, room and board).  The bolded quote above suggests I might have been too low.

Here's the thing:

If Denard doesn't like the deal, then Denard doesn't have to play at Michigan. He can do whatever else he wants.

I'd prefer the free market decide this (maybe a league that pays 18yr olds to play football?) vs the courts deciding what is "fair".

If (insert player) doesn't think a scholarship is enough compensation, then (insert player) can chose a different career.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on August 13, 2013, 02:39:47 PM
Here's the thing:

If Denard doesn't like the deal, then Denard doesn't have to play at Michigan. He can do whatever else he wants.

I'd prefer the free market decide this (maybe a league that pays 18yr olds to play football?) vs the courts deciding what is "fair".

If (insert player) doesn't think a scholarship is enough compensation, then (insert player) can chose a different career.

In general I agree with you but we make rules all the time.  College sports have Title IX.  Are you against that too?  If girl athletes did not like pre- title IX, why not just tell them to chose an another career?  How about affirmative action?  If minorities do not like it, they can do something else.

Why are we (not you specifically) so libertarian about athletes but not when it comes to women and minorities we are not?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 02:39:15 PM
How is this different from the NFL?

Bo Jackson injured himself in 1990, never played football again.  He continued to play baseball.  People still remember him as a great athlete.  How many people remember who he played for?

Kurt Schilling is known as a great pitcher, for his bloody sock, not necessarily for who he played for.  How many remember that he played for the phillies or diamondbacks.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 02:49:46 PM
In general I agree with you but we make rules all the time.  College sports have Title IX.  Are you against that too?  If girl athletes did not like pre- title IX, why not just tell them to chose an another career?  How about affirmative action?  If minorities do not like it, they can do something else.

Why are we (not you specifically) so libertarian about athletes but not when it comes to women and minorities we are not?

Honestly, I think this post is the point where this thread officially jumped the shark.  The NCAA regulation is something they voluntarily sign into, they could choose to forgo NCAA play for Europe or other professional leagues.  They don't because the NCAA bring them more recognition and future career earnings potential (see how that works), so they choose the best option for their long-term earning potential.

Title IX and affirmative action are federal laws and regulations that you are required to obey.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 02:49:46 PM
In general I agree with you but we make rules all the time.  College sports have Title IX.  Are you against that too?  If girl athletes did not like pre- title IX, why not just tell them to chose an another career?  How about affirmative action?  If minorities do not like it, they can do something else.

Why are we (not you specifically) so libertarian about athletes but not when it comes to women and minorities we are not?

Well, I think title 9 is because universities are using federal tax dollars. I'm not an expert though.

But, I see your overall point. I guess for me, I'd rather have the amateur players attempt to unionize and go on strike. At least that would be a more organic way of eliciting change. I'm not sure I need/want the court's involvement on this one.

There is a laundry list of 18yr olds who would trade playing (insert sport) for a scholarship. We are focusing on a verrrrry tiny percentage of players that could potentially profit from their likeness.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on August 13, 2013, 02:59:42 PM
Well, I think title 9 is because universities are using federal tax dollars. I'm not an expert though.

But, I see your overall point. I guess for me, I'd rather have the amateur players attempt to unionize and go on strike. At least that would be a more organic way of eliciting change. I'm not sure I need/want the court's involvement on this one.

There is a laundry list of 18yr olds who would trade playing (insert sport) for a scholarship. We are focusing on a verrrrry tiny percentage of players that could potentially profit from their likeness.

I don't think the players can unionize.  They are not employed but are students.  And, the universities would be scared of that.  If student can unionize, then all the students can unionize and walk out until the unviserity gives into their demands (say cut tuition and fees).

----

Go back in history to the 1960s and 1970s.  The AAU was the governing body for track & field.  They insisted on amateur status for their athletes even though the AAU made millions off these meets (in the 1960s track meets between the USA and USSR was network prime-time events).  Athletes like Steve Prefontaine fought their unfair and arbitrary rules resulting Amateur Sports Act of 1978 that stripped the AAU as the governing body and established the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).  At that point athletes could start getting paid and professionals could compete in the Olympics.  (the AAU continues today as a voluntary organization)

What O'Bannon is suing for and what could happen to the NCAA is a repeat of this fight.  We went through this fight 40 years ago and now we have professionals in the Olympics.

We are going through this fight all over again and it will result in professionals in college.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
I don't think the players can unionize.  They are not employed but are students.  And, the universities would be scared of that.  If student can unionize, then all the students can unionize and walk out until the unviserity gives into their demands (say cut tuition and fees).

----

Go back in history to the 1960s and 1970s.  The AAU was the governing body for track & field.  They insisted on amateur status for their athletes even though the AAU made millions off these meets (in the 1960s track meets between the USA and USSR was network prime-time events).  Athletes like Steve Prefontaine fought their unfair and arbitrary rules resulting Amateur Sports Act of 1978 that stripped the AAU as the governing body and established the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).  At that point athletes could start getting paid and professionals could compete in the Olympics.  (the AAU continues today as a voluntary organization)

What O'Bannon is suing for and what could happen to the NCAA is a repeat of this fight.  We went through this fight 40 years ago and now we have professionals in the Olympics.

We are going through this fight all over again and it will result in professionals in college.

Well, officially, I don't know if they can unionize, but it's all about supply and demand. If all D1 football players walk away from school until they "get paid", you can bet the schools will have to figure something out. If there are simply more kids lining up to play, then too bad for the guys who walked out.

I don't say any of this to be anti-union, or pro-big business... but this is simply the laws of supply and demand. There are a lot of kids out there willing to take a scholarship to play (insert sport).

If the top level kids think they are getting screwed, then they should just play something else.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 13, 2013, 12:23:05 PM
There should be an estimated value of the payments for say the video game added to the estimated value that the players bring in for playing ball minus room, food, books and tuition.  That's what players should get which would be just like them paying their way but still getting their fair cut of what they bring to the school. 

So does this estimated value get recalculated every year?  Obviously Vander Blue brought more "value" his junior year than he did his freshman year.  Does each player then become a "free agent" after each season, or if the athlete blows up is the school suddenly on the hook for paying the athlete their "value" regardless. 

What about non-revenue sports?  Britney Griner I'm sure brought in a lot of money for women's basketball, but that sport loses money.  How much does she get paid?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
I don't think the players can unionize.  They are not employed but are students.  And, the universities would be scared of that.  If student can unionize, then all the students can unionize and walk out until the unviserity gives into their demands (say cut tuition and fees).

They must have been able to unionize, because on several different occasions at Marquette, I actually went inside the student union.

Quote from: WarriorInDC on August 13, 2013, 04:30:47 PM
So does this estimated value get recalculated every year?  Obviously Vander Blue brought more "value" his junior year than he did his freshman year.  Does each player then become a "free agent" after each season, or if the athlete blows up is the school suddenly on the hook for paying the athlete their "value" regardless. 

What about non-revenue sports?  Britney Griner I'm sure brought in a lot of money for women's basketball, but that sport loses money.  How much does she get paid?

A few things, I wasn't talking about each player I did a bad job of stating that.  Determine a collective value and divide it equally.  And regarding non revenue sports why would they get paid?  This is purely about the sports that schools are making tons of money off of the players (football, basketball, and certain schools hockey)

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 13, 2013, 05:09:45 PM
A few things, I wasn't talking about each player I did a bad job of stating that.  Determine a collective value and divide it equally.  And regarding non revenue sports why would they get paid?  This is purely about the sports that schools are making tons of money off of the players (football, basketball, and certain schools hockey)

Only fair way to do this is let them hire agents and negotiate contracts to play for schools.

BTW, from the late 19th century to early 20th century college players could be paid and some even played more than four years.

O'Bannon wants to back to the future.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 12:12:37 PM
Here is the cover of the EA Sports NCAA 14 that was released July 9.

Denard Robinson got nothing for this.  Michigan is getting paid for this cover.

You think this is fair?

I'm amused by your continued use of the word "nothing."

Denard Robinson got an education, room and board actually valued at over $218,000 to him as a non-Michigan resident.
http://www.finaid.umich.edu/TopNav/AboutUMFinancialAid/CostofAttendance.aspx
Given that he avoided student loans, the ultimate value is probably far greater than $218K in avoided interest payments, but I'll let that slide.

In addition, he received valule in the form of access to professional coaches, facilities and exposure that enabled him to secure an entry level job that paid him a signing bonus of $213,000 and a starting salary of $458,000 for a total of $672,000 (compared to $51,300 first year compensation for all UMich grads).

What Denard Robinson actually got for allowing his image to be used is worth nearly a quarter-million dollars of added value from the University of Michigan above what non-football playing students received. 

You guys sure Robinson didn't get paid by EA to be on the cover? Double check.

Lots of lies and nonsense in this thread. Awful.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 09:13:58 PM
You guys sure Robinson didn't get paid by EA to be on the cover? Double check.

Lots of lies and nonsense in this thread. Awful.

I love the fact that the sky is falling people report on games that don't exist and individuals whose likenesses are being used (when they themselves struct a licensing deal with EA (denard robinson)).

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 09:13:58 PM
You guys sure Robinson didn't get paid by EA to be on the cover? Double check.

Lots of lies and nonsense in this thread. Awful.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9486048/ncaa-not-renewing-contract-ea-sports-video-games

July 17, 2013
NCAA to end deal with EA Sports

The NCAA said Wednesday it won't allow Electronic Arts Inc. to use its logo and name in video games while it fights a lawsuit that says the governing body owes billions of dollars to former players for allowing their likenesses to be used for free.

The NCAA said it won't enter into a new contract with EA Sports beyond the current one that expires in June 2014. That means "NCAA Football 2014" will be the last edition of the popular game. However, EA Sports still plans to produce a college football video game depicting powerhouse schools such as Alabama, Ohio State and Oregon.

"Member colleges and universities license their own trademarks and other intellectual property for the video game," the NCAA said in a statement. "They will have to independently decide whether to continue those business arrangements in the future."

The Collegiate Licensing Company, which manages the trademarks of the majority of the colleges in Electronic Arts' NCAA football video game, said Wednesday it would continue to work with the video game maker for future editions of the franchise.

"EA Sports' trademark licensing agreement with the NCAA is set to expire, and the company will be re-branding its college football game so as to exclude the NCAA's name and marks," said Andrew Giangola, spokesman for IMG College, which owns CLC, in a statement.

The first non-NCAA-affiliated EA Sports college football video game will be called "College Football 15," a source told ESPN.

"EA Sports will continue to develop and publish college football games, but we will no longer include the NCAA names and marks," said EA executive vice president Andrew Wilson. "Our relationship with the Collegiate Licensing Co. is strong and we are already working on a new game for next generation consoles which will launch next year and feature the college teams, conferences and all the innovation fans expect from EA Sports."

The NCAA is in the midst of a long legal battle that started with a lawsuit filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon.

The suit has expanded to include several former athletes who claim the NCAA and EA Sports have used their names and likenesses without compensation and demand the NCAA find a way to give players a cut of the billions of dollars earned from live broadcasts, memorabilia sales and video games.

"We are confident in our legal position regarding the use of our trademarks in video games," the NCAA said. "But given the current business climate and costs of litigation, we determined participating in this game is not in the best interests of the NCAA.

"The NCAA has never licensed the use of current student-athlete names, images or likenesses to EA. The NCAA has no involvement in licenses between EA and former student-athletes."

The plaintiffs in the case against the NCAA would not be able to use the elimination of the EA Sports partnership as admissible evidence of the NCAA's guilt in court.

Information from ESPN's Darren Rovell and Brett McMurphy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Another - what's your point on the bold? You're still confused, my man.

Most of you are. Scary. Get with the facts.

Where is the mention of Denard Robinson or the cover of the game at all in that article????

Not sure how that is relevant to what Jay Bee brought up.

EDIT:  He beat me to it

This link says the NCAA was getting paid, not the players and now the NCAA is stopping this practice because of the O'Bannon lawsuit.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 11:12:24 PM
Another - what's your point on the bold? You're still confused, my man.

Most of you are. Scary. Get with the facts.

Jay Bee, I'll admit to being very confused by this case.  I'm honestly not sure what it is about as the original "likeness signing away for life" argument and lawsuit made no sense to me.  

That makes me think that I know very little about what this case is actually about at this point.  

My main argument here is that if the concerns are over 'likeness', I see this having no effect on college sports as they have a very weak argument there and have no understanding how this gets extended to broad amateur status issues.  

I was hoping 84 might be able to provide some insight.  I've tried to find some things through the internet, but it seems as if very few if anyone understands what the case is about at this point.  

Care to help?

Another - you're confused.

Some of you actually believe the NCAA said, "hey EA, go ahead and use Denard Robinson as the cover guy.. just hit us with some loot!" ??!?!?

Denard was delirious with excitement when EA wanted him as their cover guy. He couldn't WAIT to get to EA Sports headquarters.

AGAIN, the lawsuit was born from an ambulance chaser. SOME of the topics are worth speaking on.. and the scary one is what has JUST been introduced into court. The reason why we're talking about current athletes getting paid is because the first four years of arguments from the O'Bannon attorney/ambulance chaser was a bunch of worthless nonsense that was being shat on by depositions and case law.

All the cover guys on EA Sports college games have been PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 11:30:37 PM
This link says the NCAA was getting paid, not the players and now the NCAA is stopping this practice because of the O'Bannon lawsuit.

"The NCAA has never licensed the use of current student-athlete names, images or likenesses to EA. The NCAA has no involvement in licenses between EA and former student-athletes."

That part is pretty important.

How about this??

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2013/03/12/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Denard-Robinson.aspx

Hail To The Victor: Denard Robinson To Be On Cover Of EA Sports' "NCAA Football 14"

Former Univ. of Michigan QB Denard Robinson will appear on the cover of EA Sports' "NCAA Football 14" after beating former Texas A&M WR Ryan Swope "in an intense final round of Facebook voting" that concluded Friday, according to Kyle Meinke of ANNARBOR.com. Robinson becomes the third former UM player to "grace the cover of the video game," joining Heisman Trophy winners Charles Woodson ('97) and Desmond Howard ('06). An EA Sports spokesperson said that Robinson will "receive no compensation for winning the vote." However, Meinke notes he and the UM brand "certainly stand to benefit from the exposure." UM made a "hard push to land Robinson on the cover, including initiating an intense social media campaign." The announcement of the winner was delayed until today while EA Sports "checked into reports of fraudulent voting practices." EA did "not release the final tally, but did say more than 250,000 votes were cast, and that Robinson received more than half." The final round of voting included some "irregularities" which "amounted to reported voting bots for Swope." Fake Facebook accounts were "being created to pad his total" (ANNARBOR.com, 3/12).

Quote from: forgetful on August 13, 2013, 11:31:35 PM
Jay Bee, I'll admit to being very confused by this case.  I'm honestly not sure what it is about as the original "likeness signing away for life" argument and lawsuit made no sense to me.  

That makes me think that I know very little about what this case is actually about at this point.  

My main argument here is that if the concerns are over 'likeness', I see this having no effect on college sports as they have a very weak argument there and have no understanding how this gets extended to broad amateur status issues.  

I was hoping 84 might be able to provide some insight.  I've tried to find some things through the internet, but it seems as if very few if anyone understands what the case is about at this point.  

Care to help?

Yes, that was an early argument - that players were "forced" to sign away their ability to make money off their name and likeness related to time in college.

The problem is that was a stupid argument and that patently false. Again, the O'Bannon attorney is an ambulance chaser type. He's thrown a bunch of crap on the wall hoping something sticks.

In depositions, the NCAA questioned players... "hey... so... has the NCAA ever told you that you can't make money related to your name and likeness?" "well, uhh.. no".. "have you ever been approached to make money based on your collegiate career" "well, yes, I was offered huge money... ".. and is there any reason that you couldn't do so?"... "uhhh, no".

I mean, it's STUPID. The crap is made up nonsense.

That's why the case has dramatically changed - and why the ambulance chaser wants current athletes now involved. The case was never about sharing current revenues with current players. Now they want it to be. Just keep on trying to find the money. That's what is going on.

Now, is "should players be additionally compensated" a conversation that maybe should happen? Should alternative models be explored? Sure, but the "O'Bannon case" isn't some righteous cry for poor student-athletes. It's about chasing dollars.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 13, 2013, 11:34:36 PM
How about this??

What do you mean how about it? Again, this isn't some deal between Michigan or the NCAA and EA Sports. EA isn't flipping over loot to them.

Is promotion of a former player good for your school? Sure. How about that? Uhh, yeah, obviously.

Is the promotion of a current professional player good for that professional player? Sure. How about that? Uhh, yeah, obviously. 

Go ask Denard Robinson about being on the cover - you really think he was forced to board a plane and meet with EA Sports? No, they set him up and he was excited and amped to head over to their headquarters.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 11:39:41 PM
Yes, that was an early argument - that players were "forced" to sign away their ability to make money off their name and likeness related to time in college.

The problem is that was a stupid argument and that patently false. Again, the O'Bannon attorney is an ambulance chaser type. He's thrown a bunch of crap on the wall hoping something sticks.

In depositions, the NCAA questioned players... "hey... so... has the NCAA ever told you that you can't make money related to your name and likeness?" "well, uhh.. no".. "have you ever been approached to make money based on your collegiate career" "well, yes, I was offered huge money... ".. and is there any reason that you couldn't do so?"... "uhhh, no".

I mean, it's STUPID. The crap is made up nonsense.

That's why the case has dramatically changed - and why the ambulance chaser wants current athletes now involved. The case was never about sharing current revenues with current players. Now they want it to be. Just keep on trying to find the money. That's what is going on.

Now, is "should players be additionally compensated" a conversation that maybe should happen? Should alternative models be explored? Sure, but the "O'Bannon case" isn't some righteous cry for poor student-athletes. It's about chasing dollars.

Thanks.  Honestly, I'm not sure why this case is still going on.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 11:42:35 PM
What do you mean how about it? Again, this isn't some deal between Michigan or the NCAA and EA Sports. EA isn't flipping over loot to them.

Is promotion of a former player good for your school? Sure. How about that? Uhh, yeah, obviously.

Is the promotion of a current professional player good for that professional player? Sure. How about that? Uhh, yeah, obviously. 

Go ask Denard Robinson about being on the cover - you really think he was forced to board a plane and meet with EA Sports? No, they set him up and he was excited and amped to head over to their headquarters.

Maybe, trying reading the posts before you comment on them.

From the top of this


http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9486048/ncaa-not-renewing-contract-ea-sports-video-games

July 17, 2013
NCAA to end deal with EA Sports

The NCAA said Wednesday it won't allow Electronic Arts Inc. to use its logo and name in video games while it fights a lawsuit that says the governing body owes billions of dollars to former players for allowing their likenesses to be used for free.

The NCAA said it won't enter into a new contract with EA Sports beyond the current one that expires in June 2014. That means "NCAA Football 2014" will be the last edition of the popular game. However, EA Sports still plans to produce a college football video game depicting powerhouse schools such as Alabama, Ohio State and Oregon.

And from page 3 of this thread .....


http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

The list, which represented royalties on the $4.6 billion annual college merchandise business, reflects money collected by schools on sales of gear from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013.

Schools that saw a rise in the royalty rankings include Notre Dame, which went from ninth last season to third after playing in the BCS title game.

Texas A&M, thanks in part to an 11-2 season in its first year in the SEC and quarterback Johnny Manziel winning the Heisman Trophy, jumped from No. 19 to No. 12 over the past year, and University of Louisville moved from No. 32 last year to No. 25 thanks to the success of its championship men's basketball licensing program.

The biggest slide in merchandise royalties was Penn State, likely due to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Penn State dropped from 10 to 12 last year and fell seven more spots this year to No. 19.

Nike was the No. 1 apparel licensee among college teams, while EA Sports, whose college game is the subject of two current lawsuits brought by former players, was the top non-apparel licensee. Although the NCAA recently announced it would take its name off the game, CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games.

CLC is an affiliate of IMG College, which is owned by sports conglomerate IMG.
Although the NCAA recently announced it would take its name off the game, CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games.

CLC is an affiliate of IMG College, which is owned by sports conglomerate IMG.

-----------

EA is not "flipping loot" to the NCAA ... The have a fleet of brink's trucks hauling it over everyday.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 11:39:41 PM
Yes, that was an early argument - that players were "forced" to sign away their ability to make money off their name and likeness related to time in college.

The problem is that was a stupid argument and that patently false. Again, the O'Bannon attorney is an ambulance chaser type. He's thrown a bunch of crap on the wall hoping something sticks.

In depositions, the NCAA questioned players... "hey... so... has the NCAA ever told you that you can't make money related to your name and likeness?" "well, uhh.. no".. "have you ever been approached to make money based on your collegiate career" "well, yes, I was offered huge money... ".. and is there any reason that you couldn't do so?"... "uhhh, no".

I mean, it's STUPID. The crap is made up nonsense.

That's why the case has dramatically changed - and why the ambulance chaser wants current athletes now involved. The case was never about sharing current revenues with current players. Now they want it to be. Just keep on trying to find the money. That's what is going on.

Now, is "should players be additionally compensated" a conversation that maybe should happen? Should alternative models be explored? Sure, but the "O'Bannon case" isn't some righteous cry for poor student-athletes. It's about chasing dollars.

I think it's bedtime for little Jaybee because. None of this is correct.  It is so far from reality I don't know where to start with it. 

All I say is o'bannon tried to profit off his name and likeness after winning the NCAA title at UCLA and he was shutdown by the very same rules he is trying to overturn.  Further enough former players agree with him the the judge denied the NCAA motions last week and is expected to rule that o'bannon is now a class action representing thousands of former players and if he wins the NCAA will owe them billions.

By hey, it's a nice little fantasy you have here.

Another - keep up. The "flipping loot" was re: Denard Robinson being on the cover. Remember when you posted a pic of Denard Robinson earlier and said, "Here is a cover of EA Sports NCAA 14 that was released July 9. Michigan is getting paid for this cover."

You're changing your story.. just like Hausfeld LLP.
-----------
The lead attorney for Hausfeld (the ambulance chaser) Jon King was fired because he started talking too much about the wrongdoings of his firm... his lawsuit against Hausfeld LLP begins with "This case is about a bully. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/121421996/Jon-T-King-vs-Hausfeld-LLP)" It was filed early this calendar year. Just read two or three pages if you need a little entertainment.

-----------
Just in this thread we have people thinking there is a game called College Hoops 2k13, when the last one was released in 2007.. and the last NCAA basketball game, period was released in 2009. "Woooah, look! Davante Gardner is in the game! OMG there is Todd Mayo! How naughty of the NCAA!" Except... Davante was a young kid in the 757 back when the game was made.
------------

Quote from: AnotherMU84All I say is o'bannon tried to profit off his name and likeness after winning the NCAA title at UCLA and he was shutdown by the very same rules he is trying to overturn.  Further enough former players agree with him the the judge denied the NCAA motions last week and is expected to rule that o'bannon is now a class action representing thousands of former players and if he wins the NCAA will owe them billions.

That's all you say? OK.. let's try this - tell me about how O'Bannon was shutdown when trying to profit off his name and likeness? You say he tried to profit but was shutdown.. tell me more. Have an example?

Another where you are confused is in the following:

The $4.6 billion dollar figure is in all licensing for school apparel and non-apparel, regardless of whether it is a jersey or simply the school logo.

It does say that EA sport is the largest "non-apparel" licensee for the Schools, not the NCAA.

Your own article had the following:

"The NCAA has never licensed the use of current student-athlete names, images or likenesses to EA. The NCAA has no involvement in licenses between EA and former student-athletes."

Therefore they were never profiting from the players likeness.  Moreover, neither michigan nor Robinson received anything from EA sports, they did it voluntarily for the free publicity.

The schools themselves make next to nothing.  Ohio State for instance made $181,000 for the EA sports use of Ohio state logos and info in 2012.

So the athletes want 1/3 of that, or just a hair over $60,000, divided across the 120 ish football players and we have $500 per person.  That is less than the cost of their gear, that is provided free of charge.

Quote from: forgetful on August 14, 2013, 12:23:15 AM
Another where you are confused is in the following:

The $4.6 billion dollar figure is in all licensing for school apparel and non-apparel, regardless of whether it is a jersey or simply the school logo.

It does say that EA sport is the largest "non-apparel" licensee for the Schools, not the NCAA.

Your own article had the following:

"The NCAA has never licensed the use of current student-athlete names, images or likenesses to EA. The NCAA has no involvement in licenses between EA and former student-athletes."

Therefore they were never profiting from the players likeness.  Moreover, neither michigan nor Robinson received anything from EA sports, they did it voluntarily for the free publicity.

The schools themselves make next to nothing.  Ohio State for instance made $181,000 for the EA sports use of Ohio state logos and info in 2012.

So the athletes want 1/3 of that, or just a hair over $60,000, divided across the 120 ish football players and we have $500 per person.  That is less than the cost of their gear, that is provided free of charge.

Are you an attorney for the NCAA?

From a post a few pages back ...

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

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 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?"


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

You can go to the links above and read the rest of the stories as I cut a bunch out for brevity.  But what I posted above are D1 power conference ADs, like Pat Haden are throwing numbers like $2 million to $10 million a year per school around.  They are not concerned they will owe 120 players $181,000/year.

So please explain why these numerous D1 ADs have it all wrong and you have it right that this is a bunch of nothing.

.

Your article is sensational journalism at its best.  The quotes are from AD's being asked what happens in the worst case scenario...the last one even has "What would we do if we lost?".  As if such a thought is impossible.  It is written to get people like you all fired up and bring in ad dollars.

The $181,000 is from your EAsports argument, which I show is meaningless.

I've told you that I think the argument for access to the TV rights is pretty ridiculous.  I told you that I have zero legal background.  My insight comes from reading legal opinions from experts that vastly agree that the argument for TV rights is quite weak.

You provide no links and when comforted with stories that refute your argument you brush them aside as sensational journalism.

Two issues,

1. How much money is at stake, which you contend is a meaningless amount.  Yet I link  several stories saying it could be huge, so huge that EA and the NCAA are changing their ways.  You just announce it is a small amount and have not even provided a link the the Ohio State amount, or to your broader contention that the amounts are trival sums.

The second issue is if O'Bannon will win, again I provide links that say many ADs are worried and another that the judge in the case has denied the NCAA motions which suggests to legal experts this means she will rule in favor O'Bannon that it becomes a class action.  You say your not a lawyer and then announce the case is weak.  Why?

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 14, 2013, 12:14:56 AM
Another - keep up. The "flipping loot" was re: Denard Robinson being on the cover. Remember when you posted a pic of Denard Robinson earlier and said, "Here is a cover of EA Sports NCAA 14 that was released July 9. Michigan is getting paid for this cover."

You're changing your story.. just like Hausfeld LLP.
-----------
The lead attorney for Hausfeld (the ambulance chaser) Jon King was fired because he started talking too much about the wrongdoings of his firm... his lawsuit against Hausfeld LLP begins with "This case is about a bully. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/121421996/Jon-T-King-vs-Hausfeld-LLP)" It was filed early this calendar year. Just read two or three pages if you need a little entertainment.

-----------
Just in this thread we have people thinking there is a game called College Hoops 2k13, when the last one was released in 2007.. and the last NCAA basketball game, period was released in 2009. "Woooah, look! Davante Gardner is in the game! OMG there is Todd Mayo! How naughty of the NCAA!" Except... Davante was a young kid in the 757 back when the game was made.
------------

That's all you say? OK.. let's try this - tell me about how O'Bannon was shutdown when trying to profit off his name and likeness? You say he tried to profit but was shutdown.. tell me more. Have an example?

You know what this reads like ... That you're a scumbag lawyer (redundant term) jealous of another scumbag lawyer that makes more money than you.  It is no different than a 16 year old girl jealous of another's prom dress.

Who cares what the lawyers background is.  So far the judge agrees with O'Bannons lawyer.  Sounds like the real complaint is the NCAA needs better lawyers.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on August 14, 2013, 11:57:10 AM
You provide no links and when comforted with stories that refute your argument you brush them aside as sensational journalism.

Two issues,

1. How much money is at stake, which you contend is a meaningless amount.  Yet I link  several stories saying it could be huge, so huge that EA and the NCAA are changing their ways.  You just announce it is a small amount and have not even provided a link the the Ohio State amount, or to your broader contention that the amounts are trival sums.

The second issue is if O'Bannon will win, again I provide links that say many ADs are worried and another that the judge in the case has denied the NCAA motions which suggests to legal experts this means she will rule in favor O'Bannon that it becomes a class action.  You say your not a lawyer and then announce the case is weak.  Why?

Bothering with links is a waste of my time.  Here is the Ohio State link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579010513489442936.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579010513489442936.html)

They admit this is worst case scenario.

The NCAA is more likely to get this case dismissed before trial than they are to lose tv rights.  Once the judge rules on the class action lawsuit, EAsports and the NCAA will file a motion for summary judgement.

Quote from: forgetful on August 14, 2013, 12:54:26 PM
Bothering with links is a waste of my time.  Here is the Ohio State link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579010513489442936.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579010513489442936.html)

They admit this is worst case scenario.

The NCAA is more likely to get this case dismissed before trial than they are to lose tv rights.  Once the judge rules on the class action lawsuit, EAsports and the NCAA will file a motion for summary judgement.

You should posted this story as it is good and includes an MU law prof.  So I will

One idea this the story missed, even if the award is small, it is still tectonic because it opens the door for players to get paid.  Once that door is open it will not be closed and only open wider.

For the record I hope players get paid, and paid a lot.  From the AAU to baseball free agency when players get paid, it makes the system more equatable and the product better.  So, once NCAA players get paid, I believe they will have a better product.

The Wall Street Journal
August 13, 2013

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579010513489442936.html

College Athletics Could Die! Or Not
Worst-Case Scenario: The O'Bannon Case Barely Bruises Ohio State While Flattening Iowa State

To hear it from doomsayers in the NCAA, college sports faces a potentially devastating threat.

The alleged danger: a lawsuit brought by former and current college athletes, seeking a share of NCAA revenues.

But a Wall Street Journal examination finds that even if the plaintiffs got everything they are seeking, most Division I athletic departments would avoid catastrophe.

"It won't be a tobacco case, destroy the industry, because nobody wants to see that happen," said Rodney Fort, a professor of sport management at the University of Michigan.

Still, a sense of alarm may be warranted on some campuses, particularly smaller athletic departments in large conferences. Think Iowa State. Washington State. Maybe even the Indiana Hoosiers.

Filed in federal court in Oakland in 2009, the suit charges that the NCAA and its partners violated U.S. antitrust law by fixing at zero the price of an athlete's image or likeness. In an online statement, the NCAA said that previous federal cases have deemed its amateurism rules to be compliant with antitrust laws.

Led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, a growing list of plaintiffs currently includes about 20 former and current football and men's basketball players. But the potential for damages would increase if a federal judge certifies the case as a class action, automatically encompassing thousands of athletes. That decision could come within weeks.

If worse comes to worst for the defense, according to the most pessimistic perspectives, college sports could become a barren landscape.

In a March court filing in support of the NCAA, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany even suggested the suit could knock the formidable conference from top-tier Division I to small-college Division III, an assertion from which he has since retreated.

But let's examine what really is at stake.

The plaintiffs are seeking big slices of two main revenue areas, both tied to players' images and likenesses. The first is a school's licensing from football and basketball videogames, created by EA Sports, whose animated athletes bear striking resemblances to their real-life counterparts. The second and much bigger revenue source is TV broadcast-rights contracts.

A videogame is what inspired O'Bannon to file suit. In his view, why shouldn't players profit—as do their schools—from EA Sports' use of their images?

But videogame-licensing revenues are relatively small, as a look at Ohio State shows.

The Buckeyes have one of the nation's largest programs with 36 sponsored sports and $142 million in revenue. Yet in 2012, they made only $181,000 on EA Sports videogames. The plaintiffs are seeking one-third of that revenue, which translates to $60,333 for Ohio State.

The value of TV-rights contracts, on the other hand, has skyrocketed in recent years to more than $20 million annually per school in major conferences. The plaintiffs are seeking 50% of that revenue.

To large, established athletic departments, that revenue is gravy, and losing half of it wouldn't be crippling.

Ohio State, for instance, listed $24.7 million from broadcast rights and related revenue on its 2012 financial report—though a small part of that comes from other sources, said Pete Hagan, who oversees the Buckeyes' finances. A worst-case-scenario hit for the Buckeyes would amount to $12.4 million—or less than 9% of total athletic revenues.

Small schools can also breathe easy. Take Western Kentucky, whose $26 million in 2012 athletic revenues included only $1 million in broadcast rights. Losing $500,000 would hardly decimate the Hilltoppers. A Western Kentucky spokesman declined to comment.

Then there are schools like Iowa State. The Cyclones boast the prestige and TV-rights contract of the Big 12 Conference. But they have a modest stadium (55,000 capacity) in Ames, population 59,000. Of Iowa State's $55 million in 2012 athletic revenue, roughly $26 million came from TV rights. Half of that would gouge 24% of revenue from an athletic department that runs on a break-even basis. Through a spokesman, Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard declined to comment until the O'Bannon case is adjudicated.

Even Indiana, with its venerable men's basketball program, could forfeit up to 19% of its $73 million in 2012 revenues. An Indiana spokesman declined to comment.

These calculations assume the plaintiffs are awarded the percentages they're seeking. A jury could award a lower percentage, or both sides could settle for a lower percentage. "There aren't many antitrust trials, frankly," said antitrust partner Jonathan Lewis of Washington-based firm Baker Hostetler, which has no connection to the O'Bannon case. "The stakes are usually too high."

How the money would be distributed to players, if plaintiffs win, hasn't been determined.

Another unknown is the effect of the O'Bannon outcome on Title IX, the federal legislation that mandates equitable treatment between sexes at schools that receive federal funds. One potential way of complying would be to award female athletes an equal percentage of revenue from their TV and licensing revenue, said Linda Carpenter and Vivian Acosta, authors of a book on Title IX.

That remedy would have modest financial effect because athletic-department revenue flows mostly from men's sports.

Matt Mitten, professor of law and director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University, said the likely effect of a plaintiffs' victory would be for athletic departments to reduce expenses like escalating coaching salaries but that they would otherwise continue to operate much as they do now.

What the O'Bannon case doesn't seem to challenge is the basic NCAA rule that potential recruits can be offered only a scholarship. What would represent "Armageddon," Mitten said, would be a change allowing recruits to receive money, inciting a cash war between colleges.

There are so many headaches associated with this whole issue that it amazes me that the NCAA isn't having their head handed to them.

One huge problem is how does the NCAA split the pie? Everyone in here assumes an altruistic/socialistic "do ti evenly," but that is just plain BS. For one thing, the professional sports leagues have Players Associations that negotiate standard rights provisions, language and other factors for players, including, to a limited degree, certain endorsement deals (i.e, baseball cards). The players and their agents negotiate player specific issues, such as salary, but are governed by a basic agreement between the players unions and the professional leagues.

College players have no such comparable organization. There is no convention among players and their teams for revenue sharing, playing conditions, basic agreements and terms or anything. The only "regulation" is a one-sided NCAA agreement. Do we really think Davante and Chris are worth the same as, say John Dawson? Comparable worth is nothing more than the cartel acting to regulate payment to athletes.

With a plethora of universities that made recruiting violations or cheating an art form, I can hardly wait to see what happens when they start throwing real money around.  That ought to be worth the price of admission alone. Imagine what Tark the Shark would be like if he  could hand out money like water! He would have never lost!

Is My Body About To Change In Ways I Don't Understand?

- 12-year-old

You guys haven't even touched this on a university level.  We used players images to promote buying season tickets, put on billboards, mailers, etc.  You never mention them by name, but it's out there....or was back in the day.  Things like Cyganiak Planning trading cards, should those be done away with?  How about schedule magnets with a player's image?  What about pocket schedules?

Someone can argue these are something to profit from because they led to someone going to the game.  Tough to prove compensation on this, but my point is schools use these tactics all the time. How about a school website....should no players be allowed to be featured any longer?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2013, 01:38:16 AM
You guys haven't even touched this on a university level.  We used players images to promote buying season tickets, put on billboards, mailers, etc.  You never mention them by name, but it's out there....or was back in the day.  Things like Cyganiak Planning trading cards, should those be done away with?  How about schedule magnets with a player's image?  What about pocket schedules?

Someone can argue these are something to profit from because they led to someone going to the game.  Tough to prove compensation on this, but my point is schools use these tactics all the time. How about a school website....should no players be allowed to be featured any longer?

But this could also be expanded to non-athlete students.  Your example of the school website, tons of students on there.  Promotional flyers and pamphlets sent to prospective students, lots of students on there.  Commercials run during MU basketball games on TV....   Where would the line be drawn?

As mentioned in another thread Buzz has training videos.  Does he use Marquette players in those videos? Is this an issue as far as payment to the players who participate.