In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 338
Online now 341 Record: 4815 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
A judge dismissed a motion by the NCAA to prevent football and men's basketball players from legally pursuing a cut of live broadcast revenues.
Don't know if this will make it all the way, but I personally believe the NCAA will eventually have to fork over some of the money somehow.
A judge rejected the NCAA's motion that players in the antitrust suit led by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon should be precluded from advancing their lawsuit on procedural grounds.
Major changes coming for College Football. This will fall right into place with the Super Conferences. I've been saying this for years now.
If this gets any legs you can kiss any reasonable facsimile of amateur athletics goodbye.
...It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
W. C. Fields
Right in line with SF and Zonie.
College athletes start getting paid 'Union' type numbers from TV, then we can all kiss Men's college football and basketball goodbye.
Can't wait to catch my first AAA football game between the Omaha Nighthawks and Toledo Mud Hens in front of 2,600 fans.
This will destroy college football.
No it won't. The NCAA is an outdated, ineffective, inefficient dinosaur that needs to evolve, or disappear. Let the Super Conferences reorganize and create something more modern that actually makes sense.
Yes it will. If the players get most of the TV money, why should any university have football.
This is purely a legal manuever -- means absolutely nothing about the merits of the case. The case may continue but I don't think there is much hope for the plaintiffs. If there is any money coming from this -- it will be much better for the 12 law firms than for the thousands of former and current college athletes.
There's a bit of an overreaction here. Basically a bunch of former players filed suit to receive compensation for archival broadcasts, then amended their complaint to include live broadcasts, and add current players in their class action. The NCAA filed a motion basically saying, "hold on, you can't just change your argument and class at this point -- they're violating procedure." The judge shot back, "I will allow it; let's argue based on merits and not procedure." (I'm paraphrasing.) The judge's ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the players' case. Even if the players' amendments had been shot down by the judge, I believe they could still form their desired class -- they'd just have to file a new suit.
Basically, unless I'm missing something, this ruling doesn't change anything. The consequential stuff is still to come.
Definitely better for the NCAA's lawyers. You don't think the plaintiff's lawyers are on contingency for a large class action?
Because they're not going to get most of it. They'll get a very small portion paid to them as a yearly stipend.
You have no idea how much they will get, if they win this suit. I guarantee it will be more than a small portion of a yearly stipend.
NFL players get about 50% of the TV revenue -- think about how many more college football players there are than NFL players. For example, the Big 10 network shows all Big 10 sports so any amount of money is going to have to be spread across all athletes that have their games shown on any channel. That is going to seriously dilute the money.
The plaintiff lawyers, however, will take their 30-40% as well. They are not spending $20M of their money without getting it back and then some if they are successful in a settlement or at trial. This is a lawyers lawsuit that will actually end up hurting many athletes. The men's football and basketball programs at BCS schools basically cover the expenses of all the other sports that lose money. Now what do you think happens when the amount of money the school gets goes down by 50%? Plus, if I was the school, I would argue that the cost of their education should offset any payments from the TV revenue. End of the day, the players will get a coupon for some books but the plaintiffs' lawyers hope to rake in tens of millions.
If you say so. Why does change always have to be a bad thing? I seem to recall everyone flipping out about College Football when the conferences won their suit and got to negotiate their own TV deal. That seems to have worked out OK.
The TV suit in the 80s is what has allowed college football teams to rake in the cash they currently are without any slice going to the NCAA.
Schools lose a significant portion of this revenue and literally every athletic department across the country will run in the red. Many will absorb more expenses for football than what they bring in. When that happens college sports becomes an minus as opposed to a plus for many schools.
Nobody will want to run $20 million or more in the red in their athletic departments. This is huge if athletes get even 10% of the funds. If ruled in their favor, I guarantee it will be significantly more than 10%.
I dont care how much the players per person gets. The point is how much the school will lose. Hence not being able to fund football or any other sport.
Lando and SF are spot on. This is the way it starts, small incremental steps, one after another. This needs to get shut down now. There are no "rights" for a student-athlete on a full ride educational scholarship other than what that encompasses. If the universities decide to include an expense stipend, that is one thing, to say that young men are to receive a % of the revenues is comparing a mole hill to a mountain.
This post was edited by Zonie87 15 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports