Latest on the O'Bannon case

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/la-sp-obannon-vs-ncaa-20130620,0,2380874.story

[GGGG]

New York Times article this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/sports/high-stakes-games-critical-step-for-suit-seeking-payment-for-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

Some of the emails referenced express a lot of concern about the use of the likenesses in the video games, but they were talked down by the people who wanted to maximize the revenue. 

Personally when I read statements like this, I want to throw up: 

"If athletes were to receive a portion of the television money they help generate, college sports could be irreparably harmed, according to a series of written statements filed with the court by Delany and other college and conference executives."

"Irreparably harmed???"  Seriously?  Stop the hyperbole.

[ChicosBailBonds]

New York Times article this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/sports/high-stakes-games-critical-step-for-suit-seeking-payment-for-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

Some of the emails referenced express a lot of concern about the use of the likenesses in the video games, but they were talked down by the people who wanted to maximize the revenue. 

Personally when I read statements like this, I want to throw up: 

"If athletes were to receive a portion of the television money they help generate, college sports could be irreparably harmed, according to a series of written statements filed with the court by Delany and other college and conference executives."

"Irreparably harmed???"  Seriously?  Stop the hyperbole.

He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund.  Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc.  The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports.  Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere.  In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas.  I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).

[Jay Bee]

O'Bannon's law firm = ambulance chasers.

Doesn't invalidate arguments that may be made in the case, but lots of nonsense brought forth so far.

[mugrad99]

http://www.ibj.com/landmark-ncaa-player-likeness-case-set-to-get-underway/PARAMS/article/42004

Indianapolis Business Journal article.

Looking at it at the base level from a basketball perspective, the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness...if you don't like it, go play in Europe.

[Jay Bee]

http://www.ibj.com/landmark-ncaa-player-likeness-case-set-to-get-underway/PARAMS/article/42004

Indianapolis Business Journal article.

Looking at it at the base level from a basketball perspective, the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness...if you don't like it, go play in Europe.

The problem with that claim is that it's patently FALSE. It's a lie gobbled up by the media.

The plaintiff has already started altering their course in a major way. Their focus (which for the attorneys is truly $$ and greed) has shifted to wanting amateurs to not be amateurs - they want them to get paid in college. Really, the plaintiff will change arguments to follow wherever they feel money may be.

[Dawson Rental]

http://www.ibj.com/landmark-ncaa-player-likeness-case-set-to-get-underway/PARAMS/article/42004

Indianapolis Business Journal article.

Looking at it at the base level from a basketball perspective, the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness...if you don't like it, go play in Europe.

Do what big business says (and the NCAA is big business) or leave the country.  Umm, sounds more like Germany in the 1930s than the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[MU82]

He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund.  Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc.  The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports.  Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere.  In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas.  I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).

The cynic could say that every football and basketball player could receive decent compensation if paid for by the head coaches in those two sports who make absurd money. Coach pay has spiraled out of control in just the last couple of decades.

[Jay Bee]

The cynic could say that every football and basketball player could receive decent compensation if paid for by the head coaches in those two sports who make absurd money. Coach pay has spiraled out of control in just the last couple of decades.

A head coach's salary is a small piece of a program's operating expenses. It's an easy thing to get people all freaked out about, but whether you're paying a guy $1 million or $2 million to coach.. that's not going to cure your expense problem.

[GGGG]

He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund.  Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc.  The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports.  Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere.  In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas.  I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).

Colleges and universities have been dropping sports for decades due to budget constraints...but *now* they are "irreparably harmed?"  Logically that makes no sense.

[GGGG]

The problem with that claim is that it's patently FALSE. It's a lie gobbled up by the media.

My understanding is that they allow the NCAA to use their images for promotional purposes.  Is that correct?

[dgies9156]

The problem with the Chicago Tribune article (and by reference the New York Times article) is that college presidents are missing the point.

It is not a matter of whether the sport will be hurt. It's a matter of the law.

Does law allow for colleges to take advantage of revenue-producing basketball and football players to support non-revenue sports and other activities? I did not hear even one of these learned men discuss the intricacies of the law.

For any of you who ever watched the Financial Accounting Standards Board make GAAP in the US, it's the same principal here. We care not what it does to business. What is good accounting that reflects the economic realitiies of a transaction. Here it is, "what does the law say about this type of contract." Dam* the consequences -- let Congress deal with that!

As a final thought, many college presidents sound like baseball owners in 1974 and 1975 when asked about free agency. "It will kill the sport," they said, totally ignoring the fact that the reserve clause as they interpreted it was wrong. Today, baseball isn't dead and college athletics will survive, regardless of the outcome of the O'Bannon decision.

[Jay Bee]

My understanding is that they allow the NCAA to use their images for promotional purposes.  Is that correct?

Yes - their name and image.

The "relinquishment of rights" argument has been destroyed. Mostly because it's completely false and history has proven it to be so. Deposition related to this case includes former NCAA athletes that thoroughly beats up this nonsense. That's one reason why the "O'Bannon attorneys", less one of the lead attorneys who left in the fall and sued the firm, have changed their focus.

[MU82]

A head coach's salary is a small piece of a program's operating expenses. It's an easy thing to get people all freaked out about, but whether you're paying a guy $1 million or $2 million to coach.. that's not going to cure your expense problem.

Small piece. Well, let's say Buzz's pay is cut by $1 million. That's $76,923 for each of 13 scholarship basketball players. I doubt they'd call nearly 77k "small."

Look, I am not proposing to give every basketball player 77k. I'm just saying that revolutions have been made from lesser things.

Saying the NCAA "can't afford" to compensate athletes a few thousand bucks while its coaches rake in several million is like a non-profit hospital saying it can't give nurses 2% raises while paying its CEO $10 million. There's a moral disconnect.

[Jay Bee]

Small piece. Well, let's say Buzz's pay is cut by $1 million. That's $76,923 for each of 13 scholarship basketball players. I doubt they'd call nearly 77k "small."

Look, I am not proposing to give every basketball player 77k. I'm just saying that revolutions have been made from lesser things.

Saying the NCAA "can't afford" to compensate athletes a few thousand bucks while its coaches rake in several million is like a non-profit hospital saying it can't give nurses 2% raises while paying its CEO $10 million. There's a moral disconnect.

I have no interest in talking about "moral disconnects". That's not the issue for me. If you want to talk about "what's right" and "what's wrong" - go ahead. You'll find a wide range of differing opinions. That's not what the case is about, though.

Thinking with your emotions and feelings often results in people coming up with irrelevant thoughts/theories/arguments. This case is yet another example.

[WarriorInNYC]

Saying the NCAA "can't afford" to compensate athletes a few thousand bucks while its coaches rake in several million is like a non-profit hospital saying it can't give nurses 2% raises while paying its CEO $10 million. There's a moral disconnect.

The problem with this is not that many coaches rake in several million.  And then how does the NCAA decide what player gets paid what amount for what sport?  Does Vander Blue make more for last year than Jamal Ferguson?  How about Doug McDermott vs his other teammates?  Or how about Nate Wolters at South Dakota State?

Do we limit this only to football and mens basketball?  Or to programs that are profitable?  How much should Britney Griner have earned over her time at Baylor?  She brought massive exposure to womens bball. 

Then we have lacrosse.  Should MU lacrosse players be receiving money right now?  I'm sure Duke and Johns Hopkins programs are profitable.  How much should their players be receiving over others?  Same goes with track and field.  Oregon's team has a lot of exposure but most programs lose money.

The biggest problem I have with this is where is the line drawn?  How do we decide what players in what sports make how much money?  When we start delving into that issue, it seems to draw more towards players having agents negotiating with programs and I think that is where we get carried away from the essence of college athletics.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

He's talking about the other college sports that football and basketball fund.  Women's hoops, crew, gymnastics, golf, volleyball, track, etc, etc.  The pie is only so big so if X% now goes to the student athletes, that's X% less for the funding of sports.  Either you have to grow the pie (talk to the people on this board who are furious at their television bill...that's the source of growth) or you have to cut somewhere.  In some cases, irreparably harmed is accurate because you may see the complete elimination of support for some niche areas.  I don't think he's talking in totality by examining all sports, not just the ones that people think about (football and basketball).

From the exact same guy who insists that we have to subsidize the 100's of channels nobody watches.

[GGGG]

What exactly is the "essence of college athletics?"  If we are talking about the true "student-athlete" model that is an extension of high school, and really only exists at the D3 level,  (with a scholarship thrown in for good measure.), could you really say that ever really existed in high level sports?  

But to answer some of your other questions...

"And then how does the NCAA decide what player gets paid what amount for what sport?  Does Vander Blue make more for last year than Jamal Ferguson?  How about Doug McDermott vs his other teammates?  Or how about Nate Wolters at South Dakota State?"

I personally would make the scholarship more valuable...tack on a certain fixed amount beyond the direct costs of the University.  What is that figure?  Who knows, but if you start with breaking down that barrier, it really wouldn't be hard to figure out.  


"Then we have lacrosse.  Should MU lacrosse players be receiving money right now?  I'm sure Duke and Johns Hopkins programs are profitable.  How much should their players be receiving over others?  Same goes with track and field.  Oregon's team has a lot of exposure but most programs lose money."

Since those sports have players with partial scholarships, the extra $$ would be doled out similarly as part of the extra portion of those scholarships.

[ChicosBailBonds]

From the exact same guy who insists that we have to subsidize the 100's of channels nobody watches.

You obviously haven't been reading anything that I've been saying.  I'm all for a la carte, I've told you why the studios and content providers won't do it and the ramifications of it going through, which is much higher costs for customers with much fewer choices. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Small piece. Well, let's say Buzz's pay is cut by $1 million. That's $76,923 for each of 13 scholarship basketball players. I doubt they'd call nearly 77k "small."

Look, I am not proposing to give every basketball player 77k. I'm just saying that revolutions have been made from lesser things.

Saying the NCAA "can't afford" to compensate athletes a few thousand bucks while its coaches rake in several million is like a non-profit hospital saying it can't give nurses 2% raises while paying its CEO $10 million. There's a moral disconnect.

Might be a moral disconnect, but also look at who is paying for the coaches salaries, often funded by boosters, etc.  It's going to be an equally moral disconnect when the basketball player is paid and the women's soccer player isn't.  Or the wide receiver with a 2.0 is paid while the offensive lineman with a 4.0 working just as hard is paid less, despite embodying the student athlete credo to a much higher level.

The reality is college sports, too often, is viewed through the lens of only hoops and football and the dollars associated with it.  The reality is there are 33 DI sports, let alone DII and DIII which only multiplies things.  95% of these things are money losers on their own.  That's the model.  Bring in Title IX and all kinds of other fun stuff, and it's a very complex situation.  Without the model today, most of those other sports are in jeopardy to some degree as the NCAA championships for those sports are paid for by the evil TV contracts.

[dgies9156]

Might be a moral disconnect, but also look at who is paying for the coaches salaries, often funded by boosters, etc.  It's going to be an equally moral disconnect when the basketball player is paid and the women's soccer player isn't.  Or the wide receiver with a 2.0 is paid while the offensive lineman with a 4.0 working just as hard is paid less, despite embodying the student athlete credo to a much higher level.

Have any of you people ever heard of a market economy? It aint morals folks... it's the market. Cut Buzz's salary by $1 million and see how fast Hiroshima happens and he's on his way to the University of Texas.

Why do you think the Big East as we knew it is gone? Market economy folks. Those football schools get paid more playing with football schools rather than basketball specialists.

Let's face it, as much as those morons running universities today want to argue about morals, costs and benefits, they're capitalists, just like I am. They're following the Gordon Gecko belief, "Greed is Good!" Their fight against the O'Bannon lawsuit is designed to protect the goose laying the golden eggs. Paying athletes means change and means the gold gets distributed wider and less favorably.

[mugrad99]

The problem with that claim is that it's patently FALSE. It's a lie gobbled up by the media.

The plaintiff has already started altering their course in a major way. Their focus (which for the attorneys is truly $$ and greed) has shifted to wanting amateurs to not be amateurs - they want them to get paid in college. Really, the plaintiff will change arguments to follow wherever they feel money may be.

How is this patently false? The student-athlete signs their scholarship form 08-3a, giving the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness.(ncaa manual 12.5.2.1)
.Now, if we are talking whther or not the former player should be paid for any "new sales", after graduation, I think that is up for debate...Just not while they are a student athlete.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

You obviously haven't been reading anything that I've been saying.  I'm all for a la carte, I've told you why the studios and content providers won't do it and the ramifications of it going through, which is much higher costs for customers with much fewer choices. 

And that would be a problem, why? If the market can't support those people, others shouldn't be forced to subsidize. Same goes for entertainment as it does for college athletics.

[Jay Bee]

How is this patently false? The student-athlete signs their scholarship form 08-3a, giving the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness.(ncaa manual 12.5.2.1)
.Now, if we are talking whther or not the former player should be paid for any "new sales", after graduation, I think that is up for debate...Just not while they are a student athlete.

First, 12.5.2.1 addresses NONPERMISSABLE ACTIVITIES once becoming a student-athlete (i.e., SA's can't receive $). Part IV of Form 08-3a is what you're referring to, but again - it does NOT grant the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness.

Again, the claim made over and over in the media is that players "relinquish their rights forever to the NCAA". That is absolutely false. 

"the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness..." is what I said is patently false. I said this is false because it is false.

[mugrad99]

First, 12.5.2.1 addresses NONPERMISSABLE ACTIVITIES once becoming a student-athlete (i.e., SA's can't receive $). Part IV of Form 08-3a is what you're referring to, but again - it does NOT grant the NCAA exclusive use of the student athlete's likeness.

Again, the claim made over and over in the media is that players "relinquish their rights forever to the NCAA". That is absolutely false. 

"the kids sign a contract giving up their right to their likeness..." is what I said is patently false. I said this is false because it is false.

If the student athlete wants to remain a student athlete, they do give up their right to use their likeness for profit. So they are signing a contract giving up their right to their likeness for the time they are an amateur. They are free to quit school and go make commercials, sell cars, etc. They just cannot do it in a college uniform. I agree with you on the whole rights in perpetuity argument. Nowhere, does it say this. That is what the suit should be about (and technically, I think it is). After graduation, the NCAA should not be able to use a players likeness to sell a video game. Have not read the case in depth, but did Obannon sue EA sports previously?