HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NCAA-O'Bannon Case: using athlete images w/o compensation-#756 Court Favors Plaintiff

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2011, 06:37 PM
  #51
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,859
vCash: 500
Fugu and Kevfu:
Here are a couple of interesting studies relating to your debate.

I am not sure how much weight to put on the first one given that this is an undergraduate paper, though clearly if you are a "select student at Wharton" you
have a reasonable chance of being quite bright.

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/view...pplications%22

I included it here because one interesting finding is that for Division III schools athletic success in the big money sports appears to have a negative impact on both numbers and quality of appplicants. In particular, success in basketball seems to have been significant.

For Football in Division I success seems to be nuetral with respect to matriculation.

Here is a more standard publication on the subject.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1275853

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 01:04 PM
  #52
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,642
vCash: 500
From Yahoo:

NCAA Unintentionally Leaks Financial Docs

Quote:
The NCAA mistakenly left its internal SharePoint site unprotected, allowing fans, media and random knuckleheads to have complete access to its most sensitive economic information. The leak involves years of accounting information, slideshows and much more.

Originally the information was spotted on Cats Illustrated, a popular Kentucky fan site. Someone e-mailed the scuttlebutt to rumor-loving writers at Deadspin who were able to get downloaded copies of the data before the NCAA could encrypt the information and make the important files inaccessible to Joe public.

...

Deadspin reports the NCAA took home $693.2 million in revenue in 2008. A majority of that cash came from March Madness which saw Kansas, Memphis, North Carolina and UCLA – all No. 1 seeds – reach the Final Four at the Alamodome in San Antonio. Bill Self's Jayhawks beat John Calipari's Tigers in the championship game.

Just over 51 percent ($359 million) of the 2008 NCAA revenue went back to Division I schools, with slightly more than 33 percent ($230 million) used to stage championship events. Another $26 million (3.7%) was headed to the NCAA's "management and general fund," leaving 3.4 percent ($24 million) in profit.

In addition, Deadspin reports the NCAA had invested a breathtaking $356 million in different financial markets.
edit: Following the deadspin link gives an update - potentially false alarm.

The NCAA’s Accidentally Leaked Five Years Of Financial Statements (UPDATE)

Quote:
UPDATE: According to the NCAA, these financial documents have always been readily available online. The NCAA has even offered up a link to their most recent financials to prove that they're "not hiding any money." We're stil waiting for clarification from the NCAA on other documents found online.

Earlier this evening, a resourceful tipster alerted us to a thread on the message boards of Cats Illustrated, a popular Kentucky fan site. The NCAA had left its internal SharePoint site unprotected (for some time, apparently, as Google had already crawled and indexed its files), meaning any outsider could comb through its data, which included years of accounting statements, minutes and slideshows from plenty of meetings, and president Mark Emmert's résumé. By the time the NCAA realized its mistake late Tuesday, and made all the files inaccessible, they had all been downloaded and passed along to us.
The deadspin piece contains the '04-'08 NCAA Financial docs.


Last edited by kdb209: 11-17-2011 at 01:10 PM.
kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2011, 03:53 AM
  #53
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,006
vCash: 500
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...7/?partner=RSS

Quote:
The NCAA's plan to give athletes a $2,000 stipend may be in trouble. The legislation, passed in October, now faces an override challenge at January's annual NCAA convention....

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2011, 05:09 PM
  #54
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruslan Zainullin View Post
Before i respond i first have to say that despite the fact that you and I are not going to agree on this subject, you have made many valid arguments that I respect and appreciate, so don't take this like i am dismissing what you have to say. HOWEVER, as far as "this being crap" that is a primary source directly from the NCAA's own website, it isn't something i just made up. It is an absolute fact that as soon as the NCAA allows institutions to financially compensate their athletes they WILL lose their tax exempt status, and i just don't think you can have this debate without acknowledging that fact.
That wasn't what I was calling "crap." I was calling "putting their own interest ahead of the student-athlete's interest" crap. There's no NCAA without the student-athletes. The idea that student-athletes are somehow "being used" for profit as if they're sweat-shop employees. It's a trade-off. Tuition, room, board, perks for game performance, practice, weightroom, video, meeting, playing time and promoting the university. And there is no "profit." The revenue covers the operating expenses of all the other sports and the athletic department, and anything left over gets re-invested to make the student-athlete's experience better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Good. Just another example of the "haves" trying to distance themselves from the "have nots" with this plan.

The idea that paying student-athletes solves the scandal thing is absurd. A $50 handshake is a violation now because it's over the $0 you can give a kid. If you can give student-athletes $2000, a $50 handshake is a violation because it'll be over the $2000 you can give a kid.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2011, 05:53 PM
  #55
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Fugu and Kevfu:
Here are a couple of interesting studies relating to your debate.

I am not sure how much weight to put on the first one given that this is an undergraduate paper, though clearly if you are a "select student at Wharton" you
have a reasonable chance of being quite bright.

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/view...pplications%22

I included it here because one interesting finding is that for Division III schools athletic success in the big money sports appears to have a negative impact on both numbers and quality of appplicants. In particular, success in basketball seems to have been significant.

For Football in Division I success seems to be nuetral with respect to matriculation.

Here is a more standard publication on the subject.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1275853
Thanks. It's an informative read, but the one thing that falls by the wayside in their study is the "expected outcomes" vs "unexpected outcomes" aspect of it.

The football success indicator was End of season top twenty rankings (1980-2002). But comparing 1980 to 2002's top 21, 11 of the 20 are THE SAME SCHOOLS because they're ALWAYS good.

It's not going to show "increase" in applications. Ohio State has basically always been good at football. Finishing #20 is often a disappointment, not a success.

It's the "unexpected outcome" that sees the biggest increase. It's quite rare for someone to "have success" in football who's never really had success before. I can think of ONE public school that suddenly unexpected football success: Boise State.

That's why that study showed a 2-4 times HIGHER increase in applications for PRIVATE schools.

For the most part, the unexpected teams to have success are the private schools. When they have football success, it "puts them on the map." Miami is the perfect case study for football.

The reason everyone else tries to keep up with the big boys, and every one else still has athletics is revealed more in the NCAA basketball tournament. "The Bracket." The NCAA tournament's 64-team bracket from 1985-2010 has probably led to more recognition of colleges than any other factor. The FBI estimates that $2.5 billion is gambled on the NCAA Tournament each year. It's estimated that ONE-QUARTER of the country is doing an NCAA bracket.

The teams that pull an NCAA tournament upset are putting their school on the map.

Gonzaga is the poster child. Their private school of 5,000 total students had never made the NCAA Tournament until 1995. They saw a bump when they made it that year (and lost in the first round as a 14-seed).

In 1999, they upset three straight teams to make it to the Elite Eight.
In 2000, they did it again, winning two games to go to the Sweet 16.
In 2001, they did it for the third time, another Sweet 16.

They were a 10-seed each time, supposed to lose their first game. They became synonymous with "Cinderella" and "Bracket Buster."

And they saw an increase of 59 percent in admission applicants because of it. (source: http://www.thesportjournal.org/artic...caa-division-i )

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 09:27 PM
  #56
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
OT: Judge orders ESPN to turn over contracts in NCAA case

For those following the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit against the NCAA, there was a major development today. A bit of background:

O'Bannon is lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the NCAA, suing on behalf of Division I men's basketball and football players. O'Bannon argues that upon graduation, a former student athlete should be entitled to compensation for future commercial usage of his or her likeness by the NCAA. O'Bannon claims that the NCAA and partner institutions have conspired to prevent compensation to the former student athletes.

Today, U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello ruled in favor of a motion filed by O'Bannon that would require ESPN to disclose all television and licensing contracts for Division I men's basketball and football since 2005.

Quote:
ESPN, according to O'Bannon, is "an integral and central source of information regarding ... the licensing, sale and use" of college athletes. O'Bannon expects that ESPN's contracts will detail how the NCAA has "monetized" college sports. The dollar figures of ESPN's contracts are crucial: If O'Bannon ultimately prevails over the NCAA in court, the figures would be used in the determination of money damages. Alternatively, if O'Bannon ultimately settles with the NCAA, ESPN's contracts would likely impact any settlement figure.
Some interesting legal implications for those companies on the other end of those NCAA contracts.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...SPN/index.html

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 10:08 PM
  #57
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,973
vCash: 500
I found this part at the end as most compelling:
Quote:
And yet divulging information they consider privileged is not the greatest worry for these companies. Instead, it's this: relinquishing private knowledge about how much they have profited from the labor of college athletes illuminates these companies' own susceptibility to being sued by O'Bannon. After all, if the NCAA wrongly profited from the names, likenesses and images of college athletes, then companies in contract with the NCAA have arguably done the same.
I find the manner in which colleges and their partners have profited off student athletes beyond repugnant. They lure these kids in with promises of a 'college eduation' and implicit in that is the better life and opportunities that come to those qualified to not only gain entry to college, but to complete a degree program.

They sell hope, but fail to deliver on most of it except in the cases of those athletes that go on to the professional leagues. A development league doesn't need to be set up in colleges, but here we are, another example of the Great American Way and the inherent hypocrisy thereof. A Great Way to profit off the underprivileged classes.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:49 PM
  #58
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I found this part at the end as most compelling:


I find the manner in which colleges and their partners have profited off student athletes beyond repugnant. They lure these kids in with promises of a 'college eduation' and implicit in that is the better life and opportunities that come to those qualified to not only gain entry to college, but to complete a degree program.

They sell hope, but fail to deliver on most of it except in the cases of those athletes that go on to the professional leagues. A development league doesn't need to be set up in colleges, but here we are, another example of the Great American Way and the inherent hypocrisy thereof. A Great Way to profit off the underprivileged classes.
It's why its always better to accept a scholly at a good academic school where football is not big. Too many schools "suggest" easier degrees for these athletes simply to leave more time for football. A lot of these kids come out of university with a degree they would not have pursued if Nick Saban or etc had not pushed them down a certain path.

This case will be huge.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 03:00 PM
  #59
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,184
vCash: 500
The NCAA has had plenty of time to act to placate by creating stipends (with strict limits to prevent the Texas' and USC's of the world from just buying all the best players), they deserve what they get at the mercy of the courts.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 04:41 PM
  #60
Roomtemperature
Registered User
 
Roomtemperature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,276
vCash: 923
Just let them become like Olympic amateurs where they can do endorsements but the schools don't pay them. I don't get this moral crusade the NCAA is on while its practically impossible to enforce and most don't care to.

Roomtemperature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:30 PM
  #61
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,006
vCash: 500
darrenrovell 6:26pm via Web Explosive blow to the NCAA in EA video game lawsuit. Players likenesses were said to be worth $4M-$8M http://t.co/yXpg43Kx (via @jonsol)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:14 PM
  #62
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
darrenrovell 6:26pm via Web Explosive blow to the NCAA in EA video game lawsuit. Players likenesses were said to be worth $4M-$8M http://t.co/yXpg43Kx (via @jonsol)
For what it's worth, that's coming from an NCAA vice-president trying to sell his boss on getting EA to officially license names and likenesses, and claiming it would be worth even more than the $4-8m the EA licensing deal (covering team names, uniforms, logos, etc.) currently brings in. But that's a ridiculously optimistic amount, if EA was told the license fees for the NCAA games were going up 100+%, they'd probably just kill the games.

Lard_Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:29 AM
  #63
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 19,923
vCash: 500
I don't know much about the NCAA but from my understanding those kids get next to nothing while playing so good on them. It seems like obvious exploitation and that kind of stuff should be unacceptable.

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 12:15 PM
  #64
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,856
vCash: 713
I can certainly understand student athletes not getting paid for their services while at school, as they still get a good education out of it (assuming they don't get FSU'd into underwater basket weaving as a major) and from the simple fact that if they were paid it'd likely lead to the closing of lots of non-moneymaking sports in most programs, but even I can't find a logical reason why they shouldn't get paid if their likenesses are used after they graduate.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 04:12 PM
  #65
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roomtemperature View Post
Just let them become like Olympic amateurs where they can do endorsements but the schools don't pay them. I don't get this moral crusade the NCAA is on while its practically impossible to enforce and most don't care to.
Because while it's difficult to enforce the NCAA's "extra benefits" that allow virtually nothing of value to go to the student athletes -- except a small amount with transparent procedues (like, for example, working coaches camps)... that is a hell of a lot easier than allowing kids to have endorsements.

Olympic athletes can have sponsors because they need the money to train, and OTHER COUNTRIES CAN'T RECRUIT THEM BY OFFERING THEM MORE MONEY (sure, that does happen in some dual citizenship cases).

If endorsements were allowed, schools would simply change their corporate partnerships to send money the other way, to be given to student-athletes:

"We'll buy 5 cars from you and give you ad space, and pay you $2 million a year. You sign EVERY ONE of our studenth-athletes to a corporate sponsorship contract -- we send you a team picture of each sport to hang in your business -- and then the school has free reign to recruit kids using sponsorship money.

It would be "free agency" for recruiting. Like the old SouthWest Conference days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
I can certainly understand student athletes not getting paid for their services while at school, as they still get a good education out of it (assuming they don't get FSU'd into underwater basket weaving as a major) and from the simple fact that if they were paid it'd likely lead to the closing of lots of non-moneymaking sports in most programs, but even I can't find a logical reason why they shouldn't get paid if their likenesses are used after they graduate.
That make sense.
I think a pretty easy solution to this would be SCHOOLS get the players images to use for publicity and advertising forever; the NCAA gets the images to use for publicity and advertising forever; but LICENSING rights are returned to the player after college.

And each player gets a free copy of a video game they are in.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:45 PM
  #66
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 新香
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Because while it's difficult to enforce the NCAA's "extra benefits" that allow virtually nothing of value to go to the student athletes -- except a small amount with transparent procedues (like, for example, working coaches camps)... that is a hell of a lot easier than allowing kids to have endorsements.

Olympic athletes can have sponsors because they need the money to train, and OTHER COUNTRIES CAN'T RECRUIT THEM BY OFFERING THEM MORE MONEY (sure, that does happen in some dual citizenship cases).

If endorsements were allowed, schools would simply change their corporate partnerships to send money the other way, to be given to student-athletes:

"We'll buy 5 cars from you and give you ad space, and pay you $2 million a year. You sign EVERY ONE of our studenth-athletes to a corporate sponsorship contract -- we send you a team picture of each sport to hang in your business -- and then the school has free reign to recruit kids using sponsorship money.

It would be "free agency" for recruiting. Like the old SouthWest Conference days
Which is why I hope this case is the tip of the iceberg for bringing down the whole NCAA sham.

The thought of offering potential pros the prospect of getting education to go along with participating in a competitive league is nice, but we all know what happens - athletes are encouraged to go for easier, less time-intensive degrees; get all kinds of tutoring to save them studying time; occasionally get preferential treatment to ensure passes; and so on. Bottom line is that college/programs obviously get them to spend as little time on education as possible and most athletes feel the same way.

But it's a bit ridiculous that for football and basketball players they have to go through a college system if they want to focus on going pro. At least in hockey there are junior leagues as alternatives so players who actually want an education can go to college and be student athletes.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 05:28 PM
  #67
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
Which is why I hope this case is the tip of the iceberg for bringing down the whole NCAA sham.

The thought of offering potential pros the prospect of getting education to go along with participating in a competitive league is nice, but we all know what happens - athletes are encouraged to go for easier, less time-intensive degrees; get all kinds of tutoring to save them studying time; occasionally get preferential treatment to ensure passes; and so on. Bottom line is that college/programs obviously get them to spend as little time on education as possible and most athletes feel the same way.

But it's a bit ridiculous that for football and basketball players they have to go through a college system if they want to focus on going pro. At least in hockey there are junior leagues as alternatives so players who actually want an education can go to college and be student athletes.
Knowing 2 NCAA athletes personally, I will say this. I would not want to play basketball or football at most schools. My 1 friend was a diver at NC State and was free to pursue what she wanted, and had the time to get good enough grades to pursue a Masters. Another friend played D1 hockey at Colgate and was not pressured to go into an easier program. I just would hate the thought of coming out of college with no pro prospects and a degree I was pressured into for the sake of the team.

I would say basketball players have a choice to play semi-pro in the USA or Europe for a year. If your good enough, the cream should rise to the crop.

Football though, there is literally no other option for pro prospects, and the NFL loves it because of the millions they save.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:23 PM
  #68
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
Which is why I hope this case is the tip of the iceberg for bringing down the whole NCAA sham.

The thought of offering potential pros the prospect of getting education to go along with participating in a competitive league is nice, but we all know what happens - athletes are encouraged to go for easier, less time-intensive degrees; get all kinds of tutoring to save them studying time; occasionally get preferential treatment to ensure passes; and so on. Bottom line is that college/programs obviously get them to spend as little time on education as possible and most athletes feel the same way.

But it's a bit ridiculous that for football and basketball players they have to go through a college system if they want to focus on going pro. At least in hockey there are junior leagues as alternatives so players who actually want an education can go to college and be student athletes.
What you just described 1% of NCAA Student-Athletes (at most). There's about 50 schools in the country where that sort of thing happens. Most of those are schools in the SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, Big East, ACC and Big XII. The other 300 schools might have, on average, ONE KID per year who even has a shot to go pro.

Football, basketball (no minor leagues, but NBA guys can come right out of high school), soccer (really rare outside MLS), and hockey and baseball (with minor leagues, but kids can go out of high school) are FIVE out of 88 Division I sports. Three-quarters of NCAA Division I athletes play sports where there's no pro league to go to.

All told, about 0.5% of NCAA Division I student-athletes actually do play professionally in any sport. The other 99.5% get higher grades than the average college student, because they have higher eligibility requirements; and graduate at a higher rate than the average college student.

So while you're correct in saying the idiot football player at Ohio State who TWEETED that he was at OSU to play football and shouldn't have to go to class doesn't belong in the NCAA's system of giving educational opportunities for athletes; But that kid is the extreme >1% that doesn't belong.

Even in a place like Miami football in the 80s. Which was corrupt as all hell, and the epitome of "big sports problems" in the NCAA, about 10% of the team played professionally, 30% would have gone to college on their own dimes without football, 30% got off the streets and out of gang life for four years before going back to it; 30% got off the streets and out of gang life and never went back.

(BTW - The 4% of sports programs that make money -- SOME Football and MBB programs -- fund the other 96% of the teams).

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 09:15 AM
  #69
CJV123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 471
vCash: 500
Anyone following the Shabazz controversy? Honestly, I hope O'Bannon wins $1 billion in damages and the NCAA goes into receivership, then to be replaced. It is a corrupt organization engaged in racketeering. It is akin to a Modern Plantation.

CJV123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 01:07 PM
  #70
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,856
vCash: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJV123 View Post
Anyone following the Shabazz controversy? Honestly, I hope O'Bannon wins $1 billion in damages and the NCAA goes into receivership, then to be replaced. It is a corrupt organization engaged in racketeering. It is akin to a Modern Plantation.
How about we stop sensationalizing things that we don't like, please?

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 04:40 PM
  #71
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJV123 View Post
Anyone following the Shabazz controversy? Honestly, I hope O'Bannon wins $1 billion in damages and the NCAA goes into receivership, then to be replaced. It is a corrupt organization engaged in racketeering.
I'm intrigued by your claim. Please, do tell how the NCAA is corrupt. And how it is involved in racketeering.

And I agree with NFS, that's some pretty big sensationalizing to compare something people voluntarily choose and are compensated for to slavery.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2013, 04:48 PM
  #72
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,361
vCash: 500
OT slightly: Ed O Bannon case against the NCAA hearing today

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/347813564754571265

The start of something huge?

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2013, 05:18 PM
  #73
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,184
vCash: 500
Hopefully.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 12:00 AM
  #74
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
As an old fart, I have to say college football and basketball was never more entertaining than during the height of the "recruitment scandal" era, where players were, in effect, getting paid.

SMU football...UNLV basketball...Hurricanes/Seminoles football...that was just AWESOME stuff...
The UNLV teams of old likely could have held their own in even the bottom rungs of the NBA. Those days were before me, but the teams from that era sound amazing.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 12:05 AM
  #75
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,361
vCash: 500
Just employ the Olympic model, if boosters/USPS/etc want to sponsor an athlete, let the market sort it out. Canada and Europe don't have this problem near as bad because they don't hide behind their idea of amateurism so blindly. University teams have even competed in the lower rungs of propfessional football in Europe.

It should not even be a public institution's job to ensure someone learns swimming correctly. Thats the job of athletic clubs.

Another idea would be to simply leave the NCAA. Why do you need them? The SEC could easily draft their own rules and start a league where the football team is merely a team connected with the university. I know the NCAA acts as a tax break, but I'm sure the schools know if they could afford it and leave.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.