$40 Million Settlement - Video Games

You are taking this the wrong way.

You're taking this the wrong way.  The lawsuit was over player's likenesses being "abused" and the players not being compensated for that.  As reparations for that, they wanted to be retroactively compensated.  So by taking the settlement, they achieved both goals.

Also, the goal of the lawsuit was never to completely blow up the NCAA model.  One lawsuit alone can't do that.  But it was certainly the first salvo in several lawsuits that will eventually change the NCAA model.

If you want to be pissed at someone, be pissed at the NCAA and school presidents for raking in all of this extra money over the last decade or so and never thinking of the long term consequences of that.  After signing giant new TV deals, they could have said, hey we're going to pass some of this on to the players through full cost of attendance scholarships or something like that.  But for a variety of reasons (mainly greed) the did nothing, and as a result created this monster and backed themselves into a corner where the only option is to blow the whole thing up.

They took the settlement because it makes the most sense for the class.  While one or two parties in the class, like the O'Bannon's, would probably be fine with continuing on with litigation, being part of a class action means the goals of the whole class take precedent, and there can be a decision made by that group to settle and move on.

This is only a settlement with EA. The NCAA case is still ongoing.

So when coaches ADs and bowl directors make money it's fine. But when the players get a cut it's now just the NFL and everyone loses...

But the thing is, you never played high-end ball.  You never had to sacrifice years of your life, your health, your time, etc. for the sport.  It's always easy to be a fan, because the relationship can be as involved as you want it to be.  But these kids were the ones on that field, making it enjoyable for you.  If they don't feel they are being treated properly, they are within their right to address those grievances.  And before anyone says "then don't play college sports", that's a weak argument that flies in the face of numerous other catalysts for change in this country and beyond.  Jackie Robinson didn't have to break the color barrier, the US didn't "have" to go into space, same-sex couples don't need to marry.  I'm not trying to make this political, and I absolutely understand that players getting paid for their likeness doesn't rise to this level of national or historic relevance, but sometimes the people most intimately involved in the issue have to be the ones that initiate the change, even if they technically have the option to not be involved.

They already win national championships every year. D-II and D-III schools support entire athletic departments without any revenue from the teams they produce. The likes of WVM and Purdue will be fine.

C'mon...Purdue and Western Michigan will never, ever win a national title in football.  The playing field for them is already uneven.  The top schools you listed are the top schools for a variety of reasons that those schools and many others will never be able to replcate -- history, location, facilities, built in fan base, etc, etc.

College sports is changing because as it has gotten more and more popular and profitable, the schools never found a way to pass that on to the athletes.  Little schools are fighting to hold back the bigger schools from the inevitable and its damaging college sports as a whole.

Read this article if you want some more insight into what is going to be happening soon to college sports.

the same players that are going to western and purdue, the 3-stars and the occasional 4 star, will still end up at those schools, there will still be scholarship limits

I don't get how people complain every time Brian posts about player compensation issues and then use the same tired arguments that Brian and others have destroyed a million times over.

The difference is that the schools/conferences are selling the rights to broadcast the sporting events that they are holding.  Networks pay them for the exclusive right to set up shop in their facilities to broadcast the event.  Its not a press event.  The press conferences after the game are open to members of the press, you don't have to pay for it, and anyone with a credential can set up a camera and record video of it to use under the guidelines of the press credential (i.e. you can't take things Hoke says in a press conference and cut it up so he's now endorsing the totally awesome product you're selling).

With the video games, no one was providing permission to use the player's likeness.  The schools would exclusively license the use of their logos, uniforms, stadiums, mascots, etc and all of that was in the game in exchange for money.  Same concept as TV.  The problem was that all of the players in the game just so happened to match the players on the field exactly through height and weight, age, class, skin tone, skill set, etc.  No one was licensing that, but it was the key draw in the game.  People wanted to play NCAA 2012 because you could play as Denard under Michigan.

So the difference wasn't entertainment vs press.  It was EA and the NCAA were working together to get the players in the game, but were doing a really shitty job of hiding that, which is why they lost the case.

All of this, all of it, already happens. Honestly, without looking it up, when were the last two times Minnesota beat Michigan? Top tier programs in BCS conferences recruit whomever they want and always sign the best talent in the country or the very least, their region. The only thing paying players will do is add in a new wrinkle into the arms race that is college athletics. Schools are already trying to out spend each other with stadiums, training facilities, athletic staff (yes, coaches), training facilities, etc. Some athletic programs may run deficits. Can't say I know any figures of the top of my head, but maybe. Even MAC size conferences have TV contracts, and their teams generate a lot of money off their brand selling shirts, hats, shorts, bumperstickers, liscence plates, even those stupid flags you can pinch between the door of your car. Every single D-1 athletic department makes more than enough money to pay players. The only difference now, is that the school and it's employees get rich off of it. I have no problem giving players some kind of marginal income. Some kind of cap could be a good idea. Max 10K a year?

Average head coach salary at D1 football programs is now up to 1.6 million. Or enough to pay the 85 scholarship players an extra $18,500 a year. The average at schools that regularly show up in the top 25 is the equivalent of more than 36,000 per scholarship player. Schools run deficits because competition dictates they spend all available revenue trying to compete. Right now, that's just going to coaches, facilities, and guys who organize things like the Weedeater Bowl, and NCAA suits, instead of players. I'd guess that Iowa would field a better team almost immediately if the paid players the $42,000 a year Ferentz's salary represents, and let a graduate assistant coach the team.

Are not allowed to enroll in demanding majors based on athletic time commitments.



Also, many players suffer injuries that drastically reshape their future health wise, sometimes paralysis.

Are you talking about the walk-ons at UM?  With rare exception, if they are in the game then they have a right to be a part of any lawsuit about use of their likeness in the game.

Or do you mean walk-ons in general?  In that case, I'm sure any revamping of the NCAA's treatment of scholarship-athletes will include some language on their treatment and options.  Probably won't be as great as scholarship athletes, but who knows.

Even lawyers' babies gotta eat, man. Sure, it's only the best beluga caviar, but still...

The DoE will issue guidance about how to deal with "the rhinoceros in the living room" soon enough. What reasonable worry do you actually have, what particular part of Title IX is it based on, and what evidence do you have that that will be interpreted in a way that justifies your worry? If you can't answer those questions, you don't get to derail the conversation.

Do you honestly believe that a multi-million dollar set of franchises are dead because of a lawsuit?  Depending on how the NCAA case breaks, you could see EA rebegotiate with the NCAA very soon for new licensed games.

And for that they have to spend 40+ hours a week in addition to all their school work on their sport.  Plus deal with the very real risk of long term injury.