Looks like they got their current players on board. And it seems like the players' coaches support them in the decision.
Looks like they got their current players on board. And it seems like the players' coaches support them in the decision.
O'Bannon is going to be 13.2x more famous for the result of this than his playing days.
Well done. Stick it to the man. NCAA couldn’t be more of the man, man,
Regardless of whether the class is certified, eventually, the players should prevail. It may end up being an individual group, such as in Mackey v. NFL. However, they have what seem to be meritorious claims, and especially when one looks at how the courts have dealt with the NCAA historically. If the class is certified, for selfish reasons (fandom/legal), I hope the attorneys don't settle and take it all the way to trial. It's an historic case, and deserves to be fleshed out. I also think it would really make the NCAA look bad.
That most of the programs the students are from probably make very little off football, if anything.
If this is an anti trust lawsuit, does that mean they can't act as one organization but as individual colleges giving different benefits to different kids? Essentially that is the only thing that can result from their accusation of price fixing, and that seems like it could actually make things far worse for many athletes, including football players.
I did find the point on them not getting a quality education interesting. I.would like to see how that plays out.
Success of this lawsuit doesn't cause a good number of schools to shut down athletic programs. It's certainly a shame.
It's an interesting question about whether the status quo is something worth preserving.
It's impossible to justify a football program such as UM with enormous profits not providing a reasonable amount of them to the very people who are 100% responsible for their generation in the name of amateurism. In all honesty, I think the fairest way to go would be to not shut down athletic programs in full, but just non revenue sports. It's easy to get behind a tale of a cut athletic program lobbying for reinstitution, but at some point you have to justify your own existence don't you?
On the other hand, maybe there isn't any reason but greed that institutions can't both pay revenue athletes AND preserve non-revenue teams. I'm not going to pretend to know enough about the subject to give a good conclusion.
While I completely disagree that they are 100% responsible for the profits, you scenario has interesting consequences. Beyond the fact that a huge number of athletes will no longer get scholarships, and some won't be able to go to school, you would decimate the US Olympic team as colleges provide a huge amount of training for many Olympic athletes. That said, with title IX you could never completely eliminate all the non revenue sports. Also, wouldn't you have to give the women equal money? Also, without non revenue you lose a lot of big donors and also make it tough to keep up BTN. Not impossible, but a challenge.
It depends where your values lie I suppose.
I don't know how you can say the players aren't responsible for all of the profits from any sport. The product doesn't exist without them. Even if you have a legendary coach or excellent administrators, they equal to nothing without the players.
Continuing, the consequences you state are mostly cultural in nature. A huge money school like UM might not be a good example. If a school like my alma mater Ball State decided to drop every sport but football, men's and women's basketball, and women's volleyball(Muncie is a hotbed of VB talent), I cannot imagine it would affect the athletic department or the university adversely in terms of money. There would certainly be backlash among donors, but I don't know how much money comes from people that care about those programs.
I would have to assume that since the revenue would stay the same and some donations would be lost, it would adversely affect the total enrollment. Extra revenue not used on nonrevenue sports would be poured back into athletics anyway, so we're not creating any academic scholarships or anything.
I take your point on the 100% responsible, but is that not true in every industry? If you take away the assmembly line workers for GM, there are no cars. Are they 100% responsible for the profit of GM?
In college, you can't say it's their unique skill either, look at Michigan in 2008. That team was terrible and went 3-9. They still generated a ton of money and wound up on national TV regularly and did again the next year too. Look at ND, they were terrible for two decades and they still go great ratings and continue to have their own network. And do pretty good on merchandise sales. The point being, the college name sells tickets and merchandise, as well generates ratings, much more often than the players do.
That is a way better example than the last guy I used the point on came back with.
I would have to think that UMs profits were harmed in some way by their post Carr backslide. I wonder what kind of effect a truly prolonged bout of ineptitude would have.
It hasn't hurt the Cubs I guess.
Anyway, we're getting off track a little. My main thought is whether distribution would be more just if football profit went to benefit football players rather than nonrevenue players. I would have to think yes, but would the collateral damage be worth it?
It would be interesting to see the results of that, but it would be tough to say how much of BTN is football and how much is not. Clearly football drives the BTN, but I think it would have a tough time existing without everything else, so how do you divide that up. Even so, I still think you end up with a lot of programs across the country that barely break even. So do different schools end up offering different amounts to players? Do you offer different players different amounts? Meaning you basically are now a pro league in every way. A lot of huge questions. After I read the article the OP posted, I am more convinced than ever that a victory for Ed would be catastrophic to college sports as we know and love them.
Either way, I think the judge is going to have a ton to consider here. A way off topic thought, what happens if Ed's side wins and it is announced in August (yeah, I know it won't be this August). No way they could become compliant with the law before football season starts. Maybe that won't matter, depending on the ruling, but it could seriously mess with some sports seasons while the colleges figure out what they are going to do. Unless they can just respond with a full cost of attendance scholarship, which they should do anyway.
Don't forget college basketball. That's huge for the BTN and it's not going away. They get crazy ratings for the big weekday games that are broadcast on there.
jersey. . It was nice that it was Manningham, but I would have bought a jersey regardless. That is precisely why the players suit has zero merit. Everyone would still go to the games without any one player, or multiple. Michigan's appeal is Michigan, it has nothing at all to do with Denard Robinson or any player that ever played.
it's not for Auburn football and the national revinue brought in by, say Cam Newton or Johnny Manziel and how he helped out TA&M and their national draw. Boston College definately saw the benefits from Doug Flutie. BC's appeal at that time was not BC. Michigan's draw is not Michigan either. If they fielded a losing team for 20 years, I bet they AD would lose money.
Back to the school? After all, if the players are responsible for increased revenue, then they are responsible for decreased revenue and should be docked scholarship money. Or is it only a one way street in your analysis?
My whole point is that by saying you bought a Manningham jersey proves the lawsuit has no merit is assinine.
It's the AD's job to bring in revinue. If a student makes his job easier by bringing in the revinue, then that is a bonus. I can't think of any instance where you can blame the loss of revinue on a student.
I can't believe I'm arguing with a dog.
and to an insult level to boot. appreciate it, have a good day, both you and your highly intellectual argument.
BTW, to connect some dots for you, if (and it's certainly debateable) the point that individual players have little to no impact on the popularity of college football is true, then that is precisely the point--if that is true, then it is also true that the players suit has little merit.
And think this whole lawsuit is dumb and potentially horrible for NCAA. Scholarships is their form of payment. And also depending on the school, I'd say a teacher letting an athlete skip tests so they can pass the class and keep playing is considered payment (no accusations, just hypothetical)
Texas A&M sold out stadiums before Johnny football. They may get a brief boost in merchandise sales, but that is minor in the big scheme and it won't affect their TV money. Cam probably had even less of an impact on Auburn, given he was gone as quick as he came.
Michigan absolutely is what sells Michigan. If Michigan went bad would you start rooting for another school? If Denard went to State, would you be a Spartan fan? People follow Michigan because of Michigan. Players come and go quickly. Sure, winning helps. But a lot less than you think. But I would ask the same question back to you. If you pay the players and they start losing and fans don't show up, than do you get to stop paying them or providing scholarships?
Manziel genereated roughly 37million in rev for aTm. Just last year.
" In all honesty, I think the fairest way to go would be to not shut down athletic programs in full, but just non revenue sports."
Title IX says hello...
Title IX only requires one womens sport equivalent per mens sport.
UM could go down to football and softball only, and in a vacuum it would save gigantic amounts of money that the school could put back into football.
for the football players to use and develop their skills at Michigan, and then compare that to other schools where football is not profitable (like Duke), and I can see direct non-monetary benefits the football players are getting from the profits they bring in.
I imagine the facilties at Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, USC, Notre Dame, etc. (i.e., the other profitable football schools) are all impressive as well.
If the players were paid as minor league athletes and left to thier own means to pay for conditioning, food, tuition, academic tutoring, health care, etc. (as minor league baseball players currently do), how many of them would be able to afford the investment the University currently makes in them?
How much of the school brand, negotiated exposure on TV, coaching, etc. elevates the value of the players?
My point is, I think the schools are putting money back into the players the only way they can - through facilities and support. It would be nice though for the rules to change for cost of living stipend, and travel expense for the players immediate family to games or something like that. Not to mention insurance against disabilities and continuning medical issues.
An interesting article from May highlights that most athletic departments require subsidies to stay above water and I would bet the same is true for most "revenue" programs.
Anyone think we made money on Basketball for the last 15 years?
Brandon said last year that the entire men's basketball season is the equivalent of one home football game in revenue, so they make some money, but nothing in comparison to football. At least recently
If he said it is equivalent in revenue, do they actually make profit? It would seem like basketball might have a lot of expenses, especially given the amount of travel. They may not be making any profit off of that. Than it probably also comes back to the BTN and how they count that. Seems like that would be tough to divide out, but basketball certainly deserves a big chunk of the credit for that revenue.
They want to capitalize on there likeness when some of them are at their peak. I'm sure they would need to hire agents and we would see more funny money. It's a downhill slope.
"It accuses the NCAA of fixing at zero the amount that players can receive from video games and other products that use players' names, likenesses and images. Last year, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit, asking that current players be included and arguing that players deserve a share of the billions of dollars in television revenues that flow to the NCAA, conferences and member schools."
What is interesting, if I am reading the manual correctly, is that staff of an athletics department can indeed receive compensation from these sorts of things.
Other things that appear at random points in the Division I Manual - players cannot receive income from endorsements, but they can make appearances and have necessary expenses paid to them (travel, meals, etc...). The student's image, per a few rules, can appear on cards, games, in books and other media, but while the NCAA and the school can receive money as a result (sponsoring entity, they called it), the student is forbidden from similar compensation. The sole exception seems to be anything related to the Olympics.
Interesting that 2 of the players are from Arizona. Good for RichRod for supporting them.
What else can he really say?
Players should get money from games and Jersey sales, cards, posters, blah blah blah etc., but not from broadcast. Unless they negotiate to do a show on their own or have paid appearances. I don't know that the universities should have to pay them, but anyone using their likeness other than the team they play for should have to pay them, and their university should have to fork over party of the revenue for Jersey sales.
I see at least two things happening at Michigan. A.) The MDEN sells only the #1 jersey, B.) No player ever wears the #1 jersey again.
Though this does pose the question, if you sell a #7 jersey does the money go to Shane Morris, Chad Henne, Drew Henson or any other of a number of players? You can certainly argue that it would be the current player, but how do you know. And this lawsuit is largely representing former players, seems like it gets really complicated very quickly. Of course than all those #1 jersey sales go back to Braylon and and all his fellow #1s.
I think things like jersey sales would be the easiest way to compensate the players. Take away the ban on player's names on jerseys and give them a cut of their own jersey sales.
I would love to see how jerseys with names would sell along side those without. In other words, if fans could choose with or without the name, which would be more popular and by how much. I would not want the name, but that is just me.
Wouldn't you figure if we got to the point where players profited from jersey sales, they would just put their name on the back of the jersey too? So, one could buy a #7 Henne jersey.
Even something as simple as jersey sales becomes complicated:
Who decides which jerseys will be available at the souvenir stand? Will all 100 numbers be available?
What if two "famous" recruits wore the same number in high school and insisted on having it in college too (all about branding right?)
Will team unity be affected because one player is making more from jersey sales than another?
And how big of a cut does a player get for each jersey sale? Can he negotiate this with schools when he is a recruit? Will all players be given the same percentage regardless...and how long before another lawsuit challenges that?
Or will the universities and athletic departments wash their hands of the whole thing and maybe allow the players to to sell their own jerseys? Let each kid form an LLC and hire grandma to hawk his shit outside the gates every Saturday?
I think there are real issues with colleges themselves paying players for services. I don't see why players should be barred from endorsement deals, revenues from video games, jersey sales, etc.
This seems like the most elegant solution, to me. That means it will almost certainly never hold up to the lawyers, but I would be very comfortable with the idea that students are not paid by the colleges directly, but would be paid for the extra-cirrculars like jersey sales and video games. For what it's worth, I believe that EA Sports have said in the past that they'd be very comfortable paying players royalties on the sales of the games they're included in.
The other side of me says "I don't know how I feel about a recruit choosing a college because they've got the endorsement deals with Subway and Pizza Hut instead of MDonalds and the Circle K."
Endorsement deals are one thing, though Oregon would become a powerhouse as Nike would sign their players to huge deals, but jersey sales and video games and such would be tricky. Separating jersey sales from university payments would basically be impossible. There is a reason the NFL and NBA handle all that and than just give the players a chunk of revenue. For the video games, and probably everything else, you have to see a scenario where the players form a union or corporation or something and the union sells their likeness. No way EA sports would want to negotiate likeness deals with 8500+ college football players. And yeah, for college football you are going to need all of them or you mine as well have none of them.
To me, if you believe that they deserve more compensation, and admittedly I don't, the solutions are probably much more difficult than most realize. That doesn't mean you should not do it, its just going to be very, very hard. Unless you just go to giving everyone an extra 4k a year under the full cost of attendance scholarship, which is a good idea.
Never heard of any of them.
are these players who are important to their teams? Are they guys who have prior offenses that could be used against them by the school to boot them and claim it wasn't becaue of the participation in the lawsuit? I just hope there is no affect to their status on the team because of their participation
I am so rooting for the plaintiffs. College sports will not go away. They might become professional, though, which is fine by me. MLB/NHL/MLS/NFL/NBA/EPL et al. are not perfect but at least they pay their players.
College sports may not go away but there is not a chance in hell that colleges will start fielding professional sports team (i.e., paying players). Much more likely that college sports will become like the Ivy League by doing away with scholarship players and fielding teams composed from the general student body.
University presidents and boards of regents have no interest in dabbling in professional sports. It's a completely different world than amatuerism. It's much harder to make money when labour is free to negotiate. They would have unions, free agents, pensions plans and all sorts of shitty issues to deal with. There is no desire to compete with the likes of the NFL and NBA for talent. The inevitable lockouts and strikes? No thank you.
And maybe which number jersey they sell any given year. Although that's debatable because every number on every team is used so they have to use someone's
The NCAA does not force anyone to play college sports. Playing in the NCAA is not a prerequisite to making money afterwards. You want to get to the NFL through Michigan? Good, but you have to stay amateur. You don't want to be amateur? The Montreal Allouettes are hiring.
What about all the money they make for the university? Again no one is forcing them to play. If they think they could go out and make money with their talent for a private enterprise go ahead and start a farm system for the NFL. I personally pay to see the name on the front of the jersey. The names on the back are in a sense fungible.
Lots of students make money for the university. Maybe not as much, but you could argue that some group like the Solar Car team brings a tremendous amount of prestige and money (through corporate involvement) to the university. Not all of them get a full ride.
If they start getting paid they'll have to start paying income tax. I imagine the IRS would make a good argument that the scholarships they receive in that scenario are income as well.
Off Topic: It would have been courteous to let us know who the 6 players were in the original post. A quick quote of the article would have been better, but even just saying a couple Arizona and Minnesota players would have allowed me to not have to click over to the WWL.
Interesting that current players have joined the lawsuit over the uses of "likenesses" and "names", even though no NCAA game that I have ever played has actually used the likeness or name of a current player. They basically just get a rough match with the ethnicity, and that's it.