Costly change is coming: Pat Haden expects NCAA to lose Ed O'bannon suit

Granted, the NCAA made a major boo-boo when it allowed people like video games in the door. I don't know how much money the companies waved in their faces, but administrators should have had enough sense to say no.

I will be surprised if the case ever goes to a jury and, if it does, if the plaintiffs win. The NCAA will get some smooth-talking lawyer who will make the jurors crap in their pants over the potential fallout (truthful or not). "Do you want to ruin the prospect of college sports in America for the next 20 years just so people like Ed O'Bannion can have some extra spending money?" "You will harm the many for the benefit of the few." If an NCAA attorney presents the case in that way, few jurors are going to want to mess with the system.

I suspect a major change like that would have to come legislatively (like Title IV) rather than through the courts.

 

Yes, poindexter. But schools have bent over backwards for 30 years for the sake of, say, women's crew. Now here come some plaintiffs crying foul and wanting to make things even harder.

I'll be the first to admit big-time college sports is a cesspool in need of reforms. But I don't think the powers that be are going to roll over quietly.

 

That's life. We all sacrifice things when we're in our 20s to have a better life in our 30s and 40s. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
How many talented people work unpaid internships in the hopes of latching on with a top company?
College athletics should be viewed along those lines. You give up a few years of profit to benefit down the road. I agree that it sucks they can't make money off their image, but it's part of the deal. If Marcus Lattimore ripped up his knee playing flag football in Duncan, S.C., instead of while playing for the University of South Carolina, he wouldn't have an image to market.
The university already puts a lot of its profit back into the product to constantly upgrade it in the form of facilities, programs, better coaching and training, etc. Athletes see tangible benefits from that in ways other than a paycheck.

 

My God, you normally aren't this far gone, but I'm throwing in the towel on this one. How you can advocate players giving up half a million dollars or more, plus letting the schools sell them as merchandise, is completely beyond my power to grasp. It is, however, a perfect picture of Gee's comment about the morality of these arguments.

 

Except sports aren't supposed to be unpaid internships. They're supposed to be extracurricular activities.

 

Boy you are really drinking the Kool-Aid; Johnny Manziel gets a scholarship (which is only a year to year commitment) while A&M reaps close to hundreds of millions (from now til the next 50 years) from him winning the Heisman .

As for plowing the $$ back to the facilities? Maybe a bit, but why do the "bowl" organizers make over seven figures for putting on one game? Coaches and ADs make millions? Why do TV commentators and execs make millions? The NCAA and conference administrators make the same? Because they are all feeding at the trough generated by the unpaid "scholar-athletes."

What do the kids get? A year to year, one way, renewable scholarship. Yeah seems fair.

 

Anything discovered/invented etc. in the capacity of a university student/staffer/researcher is pretty much owned by the school. Doesn't matter if its sports, research on a new drug, a computer program...anything - they own the rights to it. Everybody signs the same paperwork, interns too.

 

No, I'm arguing that the idea that the O'Bannon suit will destroy the NCAA is fucking ridiculous. Baseball survived Flood. College athletics will survive O'Bannon.

Now go fuck yourself.

 

If athletes are celebrating they're going to get paid like TAs and researchers, they'd better look again at what a pittance those folks make.

 

You don't want the lawyer to spout that line, you know why?

Because that opens the door to the NCAA finances,

"um first question Mr. NCAA, how much do you make? Next, how much of that $$ goes to administrators? How much to the actual programs?"

We all know the NCAA does not plow back 90% of their revenues to the programs, in fact I bet its more like less than 50%. Don't go there.

 

Two can play this game.

Another free outfit?

There are a lot of sports-related careers besides playing professionally. You can coach high school ball. You can go into marketing. You can work in a front office. You can write or do TV.
In any one of those professions, having played a sport in college is going to be an invaluable asset. It also gives you some credibility in the application process. If you're applying to be a high school football coach, and someone sees you played at State U., it's probably going to get you an interview. If you're going into a different field, maybe somebody recognizes your name and gives you a shot. Hell, maybe some booster who owns a car dealership is happy to have on his sales staff the third-string tight end who caught a touchdown pass against Podunk Tech.
It's an "in" that many people don't have.

Playing in front of 20,000 people in a packed arena, or 90,000 in an SEC stadium isn't a life experience?
Getting up at 5 a.m. for practice, or getting in at 3 a.m. and then being in class at 9 isn't a story you'll tell people 10 years later? Shoot, that's a normal night for some college kids.
Taking road trips to shitty towns with teammates doesn't build friendships that'll last a lifetime?
If they can do so much better by quitting their sport and investing that time into a job, why don't they? It's a free country. Lots of restaurants in college towns need waiters. You can go play intramurals, brother.

Yes, it is a capitalistic country. For marginal players ... I mean, come on. Who wants to buy a jersey for the 12th man on Illinois State's roster? Or even North Carolina's roster?
Their merchandising power, other than being part of the collective group, is already going to be limited.

Meanwhile, for the best players, college success is part of building a brand. If you excel in basketball at, say, Kentucky, you'll likely be a high NBA draft pick. If you're a high NBA draft pick, you'll make millions in salary and endorsements. The short-term profit you sacrifice at Kentucky is part of building that brand.
The university is a partner in that process.
They make money off jersey sales, merchandise sales, ticket sales, TV contracts, etc.
In return, you get all of the resources at Kentucky's disposal to turn you into a marketable commodity. You'll get to play in the best possible arena, for the best possible coach. You'll get top athletic training and medical care. You'll have the sports information department getting your name -- and likeness -- out into the public consciousness, so that when you do turn pro you're recognizable to millions of people.
Even at smaller schools, and even with marginal players, this is the deal. It's just on a smaller scale.
Of course the university benefits from this. So do the players. The university benefits a little more, but it's putting more time and money into the process the same way a company as a whole puts more time and money into the business than an individual employee. It's the way the world works.