Good read on the pending lawsuit of players vs NCAA

[2Xclone]

This was tweeted by Pollard (the link)
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/06/23/Colleges/Patterson.aspx


Good read.

 

[CycloneErik]

It's interesting, but he fully refused to consider any other position.
It's exactly what you'd expect a guy in his position to say. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but it is very shallow.

 

[Mr Janny]

The Jeffery Kessler quote is a good one. It's true.

 

[Pat]

Counter-points:
http://grantland.com/features/ncaa-amateurism-lawsuit-mark-emmert/
http://grantland.com/features/ed-obannon-ncaa-trial-lawsuit/

Also, if TEXAS can't "afford" to pay baseball players more than a scholarship, who's going to outbid them for players. I love Pollard as an AD, but this is a farce.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

Great read.

 

[ArgentCy]

Good lord these AD's are thick headed sometimes. The more they complain the more I know they are just trying to keep the gravy train going. A. Paying players DOES NOT EQUAL free agents. You can pay or not pay all of the baseball players the same (since baseball is not revenue generating). B. Maybe you shouldn't or won't be able to build a $20 million facility for the rowing team (saw Texas did that in a different article) or over pay XX coach $$$$$ for years of underachievement.

 

[Mr Janny]

Good lord these AD's are thick headed sometimes. The more they complain the more I know they are just trying to keep the gravy train going. A. Paying players DOES NOT EQUAL free agents. You can pay or not pay all of the baseball players the same (since baseball is not revenue generating). B. Maybe you shouldn't or won't be able to build a $20 million facility for the rowing team (saw Texas did that in a different article) or over pay XX coach $$$$$ for years of underachievement.

well put. The SEC was sitting on $46 million in reserve cash as of their 2011 tax statement. (entered into evidence in the O'Bannon trial today) The "we don't have the money" argument is very, very weak.

 

[Acylum]

He does make some good points. Disagree with him on the "monetizing the likeness" issue though. While true the vast majority of student athletes wouldn't benefit, that shouldn't mean you should take advantage of the ones who could.

 

[Mr Janny]

He does make some good points. Disagree with him on the "monetizing the likeness" issue though. While true the vast majority of student athletes wouldn't benefit, that shouldn't mean you should take advantage of the ones who could.

agreed. I don't like Johnny Manziel one bit. I think he's an idiot, but there's no reason he shouldn't have been able to sign memorabilia and make a profit from it while he was at A&M. A&M certainly had no problem raking in the cash from his celebrity. How many #2 jerseys did they sell?

 

[Incyte]

If these suits continue without congress stepping in NCAA FB and BB will resemble minor league systems. Everything else will end up a "club" sport IMO.

Is that what we want? I don't at least.

 

[Mr Janny]

If these suits continue without congress stepping in NCAA FB and BB will resemble minor league systems. Everything else will end up a "club" sport IMO.

Is that what we want? I don't at least.

I don't think we know what it will resemble afterward. Nothing has been decided. The NCAA could win all of the cases against it, and things will go on as they have. But if they lose them, we don't know what the next model will be or how it will be viewed.

 

[Incyte]

I don't think we know what it will resemble afterward. Nothing has been decided. The NCAA could win all of the cases against it, and things will go on as they have. But if they lose them, we don't know what the next model will be or how it will be viewed.

I'm quite confident the NCAA will lose on at least one front if not all. At least that's my opinion.

This will lead to wide-spread uncertainly in college athletics that will take the better part of a decade to sort through. There will be state law implications which will challenge conferences/ncaa in ways never see before (i.e., some schools unionized, others not). This is not the type of thing ESPN/FOX want to see.

Yes some players will benefit greatly but it may be at the cost of the system as a whole.

 

[brett108]

I'm quite confident the NCAA will lose on at least one front if not all. At least that's my opinion.

This will lead to wide-spread uncertainly in college athletics that will take the better part of a decade to sort through. There will be state law implications which will challenge conferences/ncaa in ways never see before (i.e., some schools unionized, others not). This is not the type of thing ESPN/FOX want to see.

Yes some players will benefit greatly but it may be at the cost of the system as a whole.

Once the system is compromised, the money runs out. After that all sports can be played like a club level, and football and basketball will just have minor leagues like baseball and the premier leagues over in European soccer. That is where the model ends up. Which is terrible for the players as well.

This is how I see it. A talented HS player gets his start in the minors of a BB league(say Monte Morris) Monte impresses and earns a working mans salary(30-45,000, it wont be more, the team would not support it). He does well and gets to the league, and is not a star. He bounces from team to team for 3 years and is out. He now has nothing but a HS education and a whole lot of BB training to rely on(If he even got his GED). Is he now better off than he would be if he had to scrimp in college but ended up with a degree that could support him after BB? Does he have to go back to school and now spend some prime working years and his playing money to get that education?

Answer these questions before we decide to start tearing down what we have.

 

[Mr Janny]

Once the system is compromised, the money runs out. After that all sports can be played like a club level, and football and basketball will just have minor leagues like baseball and the premier leagues over in European soccer. That is where the model ends up. Which is terrible for the players as well.

This is how I see it. A talented HS player gets his start in the minors of a BB league(say Monte Morris) Monte impresses and earns a working mans salary(30-45,000, it wont be more, the team would not support it). He does well and gets to the league, and is not a star. He bounces from team to team for 3 years and is out. He now has nothing but a HS education and a whole lot of BB training to rely on(If he even got his GED). Is he now better off than he would be if he had to scrimp in college but ended up with a degree that could support him after BB? Does he have to go back to school and now spend some prime working years and his playing money to get that education?

Answer these questions before we decide to start tearing down what we have.

Sorry, but that's not a requirement if the NCAA has violated anti-trust laws. Fear of possible aftermath is not a reason to maintain illegal activities.

 

[KnappShack]

So is Hilton going to be converted into a museum or a homeless shelter when the dust settles?

Is the next step to eliminate scholarships and bring the D-III model into FBS?

If anti trust laws are in question could Congress grant an exception like MLB has?

This is a fascinating case. It will be interesting to see what this looks like when it all plays out. I have the feeling the Golden Goose has its neck stretched out over a stump and the ax is being sharpened

 

[Mtowncyclone13]

If these suits continue without congress stepping in NCAA FB and BB will resemble minor league systems. Everything else will end up a "club" sport IMO.

Is that what we want? I don't at least.

Why not? I've never heard a single college baseball or hockey player complain about issues football players complain about. Never. You know why - because they can leave to go get paid whenever they want and they see a value in the collegiate system. Of course college sports are going to be more emotional for us than minor leagues or pros but it doesn't change the fact that hockey and baseball work well for those that just want money.

Those sports needed minor league systems to create players for their leagues. NFL was created as something for college players to do once they graduated. It's a totally different system that is no long feasible. In football we've made the afterthought into the primary role and this has happened.

 

[Incyte]

Why not? I've never heard a single college baseball or hockey player complain about issues football players complain about. Never. You know why - because they can leave to go get paid whenever they want and they see a value in the collegiate system. Of course college sports are going to be more emotional for us than minor leagues or pros but it doesn't change the fact that hockey and baseball work well for those that just want money.

Those sports needed minor league systems to create players for their leagues. NFL was created as something for college players to do once they graduated. It's a totally different system that is no long feasible. In football we've made the afterthought into the primary role and this has happened.

I've read your post 5 times and can't make head or tails of your point. Sorry.

Do we really want our football and basketball teams become a minor league for the pros with attendant free agency? Do we really want football and basketball players coming to our universities based off the "highest offer"?

 

[Mr Janny]

I've read your post 5 times and can't make head or tails of your point. Sorry.

Do we really want our football and basketball teams become a minor league for the pros with attendant free agency? Do we really want football and basketball players coming to our universities based off the "highest offer"?

i don't see that as much of a change from what there is now. It's just being done below the table.

 

[ljm4cy]

If the union concept goes through, I would believe each football scholarship player and each men's basketball scholarship player would receive an equal stipend. NCAA maximum scholarships for these two sports total almost 100. Title IX will require matching spending on women's sports, based on the proportion of women enrolled at the university. For ISU, around 86 women's stipends would be needed.

If the stipend is $2000/year, the additional cost will be under $400,000 for the football and men's basketball stipend and the women's program match. However, if the stipend is $20,000/year, ISU would need to spend close to $4,000,000/year.

The Big 12 requires each at least 6 men's programs and 8 women's programs, and a minimum of 16 programs.

It's my opinion the stipend will be at the higher end of the range. I think the first thing the NCAA will do is reduce the number of football and men's basketball scholarships to the Div 1-AA level for football (63) and men's basketball to between 10 and 12. If these two sports have only 75 stipends, ISU's women's stipends would be around 65, for a total of 140 rather than 186.

I think the Big 12 and NCAA will reduce the required number of sports to 14 but maintain the 6 men's/8 women's sport standard.

 

[Incyte]

i don't see that as much of a change from what there is now. It's just being done below the table.

You're being obtuse. How much do you thing Cam Newton would have gotten on an open market? A lot more than he got under the table.