The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
OT: Judge orders ESPN to turn over contracts in NCAA case
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
