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

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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

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

[WarriorInNYC]

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

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[forgetful]

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?

[Jay Bee]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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).

[Jay Bee]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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." 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.
------------

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.

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?

[forgetful]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

.

[forgetful]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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?

[Tugg Speedman]

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." 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.

[forgetful]

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

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[dgies9156]

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!

[Marquette Gyros]

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

- 12-year-old