Ed O'Bannon trial

[Tre4ISU]

Is the "monopoly" the NCAA's fault? The NCAA didn't force the NBA to adopt its current eligibility rules making it very difficult (if not impossible) for young player coming out of high school to jump directly to the NBA (although the NCAA may have colluded with the NBA, which another story).

I don't have time to look up the changes in NBA player eligibility, but I think when Ed came out of high school, it was still allowed for a kid to jump right from high school to the NBA. If Ed wasn't talented enough or prepared enough to do that, how is that the NCAA's fault? He had multiple opportunities. He just wasn't good enough to take advantage of the most lucrative one.

Which brings up another point. If he wasn't good enough then and then was after college, there is a benefit beyond degree.

This whole thing bugs me. No one on one side seems to want to put value to a degree. That's a lot of jack. It pisses me off. Then you have the people who acknowledge it but the say, "Well no one get's degrees that are worth anything." First of all, wrong. Second of all, whose fault is that? If coaches are making it mandatory to take certain programs to fit in football or whatever, that should be exposed and stopped. Otherwise just stop with that ********.

I have no problem with full cost. That's fine with me. I wouldn't even have a problem with some sort of compensation that can be obtained upon completion of college. Golic was talking about his kids the other day. I forget what his daughter plays but his son plays football and he talked about how his daughter works just as hard. Does she get paid too? Are we doing this across all sports or just money makers?

If we allow individuals to hold their own rights, is there a limit? How is that enforced?

The other thing is that ADs across the country aren't making money hand over fist. A lot are losing money. No one wants to mention that.

 

[Tre4ISU]

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.

As an design engineer for a small manufacturing company in my past, I was paid a higher salary than production workers, but I also designed multiple new products that the company patented and made millions of dollars off of. I was compensated as a salaried employee but was not paid royalties or bonuses for the products I developed.

It would have been awesome to be paid extra, but I never felt I was entitled to anything extra. I was doing my job which I loved and was fairly compensated for. I am sure there are tons of you out there who have made significant positive financial impacts above and beyond the norm in your companies that you considered being part of your job.

I feel that the scholarship student athlete dilemma is similar. All scholarship athletes are compensated for their contribution, but the organization benefits to a greater degree than the individuals. This really isn't that much different than the business world.

I would be in favor of the NCAA paying players a higher monthly stipend to help with their expenses, but there would be many unintended consequences if they open things up and allow a bidding war for top athletes.

I forgot about that point. That's the way the world works. No business owner is paying their employees everything they make the company. If they do, they won't be around long.

 

[Mr Janny]

Which brings up another point. If he wasn't good enough then and then was after college, there is a benefit beyond degree.

This whole thing bugs me. No one on one side seems to want to put value to a degree. That's a lot of jack. It pisses me off. Then you have the people who acknowledge it but the say, "Well no one get's degrees that are worth anything." First of all, wrong. Second of all, whose fault is that? If coaches are making it mandatory to take certain programs to fit in football or whatever, that should be exposed and stopped. Otherwise just stop with that ********.

I have no problem with full cost. That's fine with me. I wouldn't even have a problem with some sort of compensation that can be obtained upon completion of college. Golic was talking about his kids the other day. I forget what his daughter plays but his son plays football and he talked about how his daughter works just as hard. Does she get paid too? Are we doing this across all sports or just money makers?

If we allow individuals to hold their own rights, is there a limit? How is that enforced?

The other thing is that ADs across the country aren't making money hand over fist. A lot are losing money. No one wants to mention that.

Actually they are mentioning that in the trial. It came up today, in fact. The NCAA initially brought it up as a defense, with their expert claiming that only 23 Universities turn a profit. The Plaintiffs countered during cross with a document created by the NCAA itself, submitted to Ways & Means committee of Congress, stating that 92 athletic departments turned a profit. Additionally, the plaintiffs have been hammering on where the money actually goes, into coaching salaries and the facilities arms race, neither of which really support the NCAA's claims of dedication to "noble amateurism."

 

[cloneswereall]

Athletes know full well the NCAA rules before volunteering to go on scholarship. The "without consent" and "exploitation" arguments have no merit. Those rules may be spelled out in the NLI or scholarship
paperwork.

Here's the problem with that, at least in my opinion: why should anyone be able to make money off of someone else's likeness for all of eternity because they played a sport? You can argue the idea about being able to make money because they play a game, and that's fine. But using their names and images in order to make money, while they have no say in the manner of how these things are used? Why should that be allowed?

 

[jbhtexas]

Here's the problem with that, at least in my opinion: why should anyone be able to make money off of someone else's likeness for all of eternity because they played a sport? You can argue the idea about being able to make money because they play a game, and that's fine. But using their names and images in order to make money, while they have no say in the manner of how these things are used? Why should that be allowed?

Why? Because the athlete agreed to do it. If the athlete doesn't like the terms of the scholarship, he or she is free to turn it down and pay for college like everyone else. As mentioned above, that's the way the "real" world works. Most employers don't pay royalties to employees for the things the employee designs or develops after said employee leaves the company, except in very rare cases where such a deal is negotiated before hand.

 

[Wesley]

Here's the problem with that, at least in my opinion: why should anyone be able to make money off of someone else's likeness for all of eternity because they played a sport? You can argue the idea about being able to make money because they play a game, and that's fine. But using their names and images in order to make money, while they have no say in the manner of how these things are used? Why should that be allowed?

I can see NCAA fball/bball. The players will be wearing berkas so you do not recognize them. No money earned.

 

[cloneswereall]

Why? Because the athlete agreed to do it. If the athlete doesn't like the terms of the scholarship, he or she is free to turn it down and pay for college like everyone else. As mentioned above, that's the way the "real" world works. Most employers don't pay royalties to employees for the things they design or develop after the employee leaves the company, except in rare cases where such a deal is negotiated before hand.

Yea, but can they use your name and likeness however they see fit? Making money using something you create is not the same thing as making money off of who you are.

 

[KnappShack]

USC to offer 4 year scholarships and players across the country now have access to more food.

The winds of change are blowing

 

[jbhtexas]

Which brings up another point. If he wasn't good enough then and then was after college, there is a benefit beyond degree.

This whole thing bugs me. No one on one side seems to want to put value to a degree. That's a lot of jack. It pisses me off. Then you have the people who acknowledge it but the say, "Well no one get's degrees that are worth anything." First of all, wrong. Second of all, whose fault is that? If coaches are making it mandatory to take certain programs to fit in football or whatever, that should be exposed and stopped. Otherwise just stop with that ********.

I have no problem with full cost. That's fine with me. I wouldn't even have a problem with some sort of compensation that can be obtained upon completion of college. Golic was talking about his kids the other day. I forget what his daughter plays but his son plays football and he talked about how his daughter works just as hard. Does she get paid too? Are we doing this across all sports or just money makers?

If we allow individuals to hold their own rights, is there a limit? How is that enforced?

The other thing is that ADs across the country aren't making money hand over fist. A lot are losing money. No one wants to mention that.

This whole issue has been framed by the plaintiffs, with help from the media, from an entitlement-based worldview (i.e going to college is a right, playing college sports is a right). This case is being tried from that worldview in the court, and for whatever reason, the NCAA is playing along to its own detriment. This is the reason why those very good issues/questions you raised (along with some others) are not being brought up. Why won't anyone put a value on a degree? Because it's assumed that everybody should be entitled to a college degree, so the cost of a degree isn't really "relevant". I'll stop now so this doesn't end up in the cave.

I'll be shocked if the NCAA wins this, or comes out with some kind of ruling that is in the majority favorable to them. I don't know if any appeals are possible in this case, but given the location of the trial, the NCAA might have a chance if they could get to the US Supreme Court, if the USSC would even take the case. IMO, the USSC hasn't totally bought into the entitlement mentality yet.

 

[ArgentCy]

For one - if it opens things up to where you can essentially bid for players, ISU doesn't stand a chance and could never get to the "next step" they have been talking about forever. Granted, we don't get a lot of high recruits now, but there is always a chance that we can get there. As soon as money is involved, that will never happen. I'm not even sure we could bring in the basketball talent we have been lately. Even Kansas basketball may struggle in an open market.

Secondly, if I wanted to watch a bunch of (IMO) over payed players, I'll watch the NFL/NBA. I don't care for it at all. The idea of the student athlete - playing for the college and the love of the game while being another student, and there being a resemblance of a level playing field where ISU could someday build up to a somebody.

No thanks. I'll continue to support ISU - just not ISU sports.

I agree that a "free agency" type system would eventually destroy the current "college sports" atmosphere. However, I vehemently disagree that the NCAA losing will mean the end of college sports. This is ******** and works in the NCAA's favor (whom I like about as much as the IRS). It will be fairly simple to setup. First every player in the P5 league for men's football makes an agreed upon amount for a monthly stipend. For a simple example, work 40 hrs a week x $12.5 / hour x 4.25 wks = $2,125 / month. Not a big salary but it would be plenty to live on and maybe even support or pay for your parents to come see some games. Now this is equal across each sport and level or division and you are paying athlete without destroying "your" great "college atmosphere".

Now you are giving many underprivileged people who's best gift in life may be playing sports but they aren't pro levels players. You give them a good stable "job" for 4 years while trying to get some training to be the best athlete they can be. I would also set them up with a bunch of financial and life based type courses (think Dave Ramsey) as opposed to useless Eskimo heritage courses (sorry if I offended any Eskimo's). Lastly, setup a system where the athletes can make money from their likeness but it goes to a trust fund that they can't get until they are done with college. There, problem just about solved in 10 mins.

 

[jbhtexas]

Lastly, setup a system where the athletes can make money from their likeness but it goes to a trust fund that they can't get until they are done with college. There, problem just about solved in 10 mins.

How are you going to police deposits to the trust fund? Is there going to be an approved list of licensees who are assumed to be legitimate? If not, it would be quite easy for boosters via "licensing" agreements to load up a certain player's trust fund. If you are going to limit who can be a licensee, then you are essentially preventing a player from fully benefiting from his image. There will just be another lawsuit as soon as somebody can't get a deal from one of the approved licensees.

 

[rochclone]

What the athlete fails to realize is the "full cost of attendance" and any other payments to the athlete will be coming directly from ticket increases of season ticket holders. Salaries of coaches aren't going to decrease and the "arms race" in facilities is never going to cease. It is the season ticket holder that will bear this cost and the result will be a loss in season ticket holders and subsequently the popularity of college sports. There is part of me that just says "screw them" and shut down college football for two years. What is the alternative for most of these athletes. Go play football in Barcelona?

 

[Mr Janny]

What the athlete fails to realize is the "full cost of attendance" and any other payments to the athlete will be coming directly from ticket increases of season ticket holders. Salaries of coaches aren't going to decrease and the "arms race" in facilities is never going to cease. It is the season ticket holder that will bear this cost and the result will be a loss in season ticket holders and subsequently the popularity of college sports. There is part of me that just says "screw them" and shut down college football for two years. What is the alternative for most of these athletes. Go play football in Barcelona?

The answer to that, of course, is a roaring "So what?" The current arms race comes at the expense of higher ticket prices and donation levels. Schools would be free to choose how to comply however they see fit.

 

[rochclone]

So how will Iowa State comply? By raising the current Gold Level donation from $1,000 to $3,500. By increasing season ticket prices from $375 to $575. I guess the athlete needs to ask themselves do you want (a) world-class facilities (b) the best coaches in the country (c) a stadium full of fans or do you simply want another $15,000 every year. Because schools like Iowa State and most others in the Power Five will not be able to provide all four of these.

 

[CycloneErik]

So how will Iowa State comply? By raising the current Gold Level donation from $1,000 to $3,500. By increasing season ticket prices from $375 to $575. I guess the athlete needs to ask themselves do you want (a) world-class facilities (b) the best coaches in the country (c) a stadium full of fans or do you simply want another $15,000 every year. Because schools like Iowa State and most others in the Power Five will not be able to provide all four of these.

It's not the best coaches making the money in the arms race. The mediocre ones are cashing in as well.
Perhaps the money could be spent on the people the fans come to see instead of throwing countless millions at facilities.
Of course, that would mean that the money moves from people who are rubbing each other's backs instead of people who don't have it.

There's not a school alive that needs the degree of amenities schools are building today. There's also no way that bubble can keep expanding. I'd rather take care of the athletes than the contractors and coaches.

 

[Mr Janny]

So how will Iowa State comply? By raising the current Gold Level donation from $1,000 to $3,500. By increasing season ticket prices from $375 to $575. I guess the athlete needs to ask themselves do you want (a) world-class facilities (b) the best coaches in the country (c) a stadium full of fans or do you simply want another $15,000 every year. Because schools like Iowa State and most others in the Power Five will not be able to provide all four of these.

You're doing an awful lot of assuming there. We have no idea what's going to happen, what the split might be, how it will be divided, or the answers to any number of questions pertaining to this issue. There's a lot of bluster from conference commissioners and ADs about how they'll drop football and basketball or go to a Division 3 model if the NCAA loses this case. Please. There will still be plenty of money in college sports if the NCAA model changes. Will it look the same? Most likely not. But big time college football and basketball aren't going away.

 

[rochclone]

Then who exactly is going to give their share of the pot to the athlete? Or will schools just cut the non-revenue producing sports? Because full cost of attendance scholarship will not be reserved for just the football and basketball player. Rather it will be for the volleyball team, the women's soccer squad and the men's golf team. People seem convinced that there is all this extra money just floating around to pay full cost of attendance. If that is the case then why are AD's across the country sending letters to the season-ticket holder indicating significant increases in prices.

 

[CycloneErik]

Then who exactly is going to give their share of the pot to the athlete? Or will schools just cut the non-revenue producing sports? Because full cost of attendance scholarship will not be reserved for just the football and basketball player. Rather it will be for the volleyball team, the women's soccer squad and the men's golf team. People seem convinced that there is all this extra money just floating around to pay full cost of attendance. If that is the case then why are AD's across the country sending letters to the season-ticket holder indicating significant increases in prices.

So the threat is that we can't take care of the people doing the work.
Legally, they can't eliminate the other teams. That's not an option.

Maybe coaches and facilities could come back towards reality before that bubble bursts. They certainly aren't the ones to take care of first.

 

[rochclone]

I thought we took care of the athlete by providing them a first class education, first class facilities and first class coaching staffs. Apparently, we have to pay the amateurs as well. If they are employees then can we can their *** half-way through the season and tax their scholarship?

 

[CycloneErik]

I thought we took care of the athlete by providing them a first class education, first class facilities and first class coaching staffs. Apparently, we have to pay the amateurs as well. If they are employees then can we can their *** half-way through the season and tax their scholarship?

The judge will figure that out. That's her problem to put together.
It's not to far to say, though, that much of what athletes are provided is not first class.

Certainly a trial to decide whether the NCAA and schools are profiting from an athlete's likeness should be a slam dunk. If you're using a person for advertising, that person needs to be paid.