The NCAA settled a related case yesterday. EA had already settled with these plaintiffs. My understanding of the Keller case is that it was mostly about the monetary value of using a player's likeness and did not address the antitrust issue at the heart of the O'Bannon suit. Looks like the NCAA is trying to walk a fine line between settling for past monetary harm on a past case by case basis while fighting the existential threat in the O'Bannon trial that it is an illegal cartel.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanri...or-20-million/
How does that work? What testimony would EA have favoring the plaintiffs in the O'Bannon suit? And if they had critical facts, they could be subpoenaed despite any settlement in the other case. Given the cozy business relationship between EA and the NCAA, I doubt the EA people would testify for the O'Bannon plaintiffs except under subpoena anyway. No?
Well I looked back over the articles linked on the front page to verify what I read and I misspoke. I think the supposed advantage is that EA may not share info with the plaintiffs due to the settlement http://college-football.si.com/2014/...it-settlement/
NCAA reaching settlement with EA & CLC significant mainly because of evidence: settlement makes EA/CLC less likely to share info w/O'Banno
Or that the video game claims and documents may be removed from the O'Bannon case http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...-money-obannon
NCAA lawyer Glenn Pomerantz says he hopes the settlement allows the elimination of video game claims from O'Bannon trial #NCAAtrial
The NCAA had previously asked Judge Claudia Wilken to deny the use of the video game documents in the O'Bannon trial, though she refused to do so. Now, because of the settlement, the NCAA seems to think it could have that request approved, though there is no word on whether it will be.
More on day two of the O'Bannon trial
Day two of the O’Bannon v. NCAA trial began on Tuesday morning with Stanford professor of economics Dr. Roger Noll — who testified for two and a half hours on Monday — retaking the stand...
After five and a half hours over two days, [plaintiffs' attorney Michael] Hausfeld ended his questioning of Noll, giving way for the NCAA to cross-examine.
[NCAA attorney Rohit] Singla conducted the cross, which got off to a feisty start. “You realize that the NCAA only makes rules with the agreement of the colleges?” Singla asked. “That’s called a cartel,” Noll replied.
And the NCAA thinks this line of defense is plausible
In regard to live television broadcasts, Singla employed an argument the NCAA first introduced in last summer’s class certification hearing: Broadcasters pay for exclusive access to the stadium, not for the rights to televise athletes’ games.
http://college-football.si.com/2014/...wo-roger-noll/
That looks like a winner - I know I watch ESPN for the great visuals of Cameron, not for the sideshow of the game that is being played
NCAA go away, and take men's Olympic sports with you?
Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby said non-revenue sports will be in jeopardy if the NCAA loses lawsuits with which it currently involved.
"I think you'll see men's Olympic sports going away as a result of funding challenges coming down the pike," Bowlsby said at the Big 12 Conference media days Monday. "It will be very difficult to run the (depth) of programs that hundreds of thousands of students enjoy if we start diverting money."
There are two articles I read over the weekend that are useful in understanding what is likely to happen here.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...n-v-ncaa-trial
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...orts/308643/2/
The first one is an analysis of what is likely to happen after the initial decision is announced for the O'Bannon trial. The executive summary is that the NCAA is likely to lose at least in some part, but regardless, it will be appealed and there will likely not be a definitive solution for at least a couple years.
The second one is from a couple years ago and details how tenuous a hold the NCAA really has on collegiate athletics, especially football. Reading both of these in a short period of time, I get the impression that the NCAA as it currently stands is a severely endangered species.
Good find. I agree. Sort of like the dot.com bubble bursting in 1999, the NCAA is a big bubble thats is perilously close to bursting. I'm just not sure what College Sports as we know it today looks like, after that happens. What will the recovery & rebuild process look like?
I'm afraid I agree with you old pal. A classic case of I cannot have my cake and eat it too. If substantial amounts of the revenue are redirected to athlete's in the revenue sports, the Olympic sports die, and worse, some of the revenue sports at smaller Div I Schools die as well. Without revenue sharing from the haves, the have nots cannot survive.
It will be major change, and vastly different from the college sports model most of us grew up loving.
Yep I miss the old flawed NCAA already. I read one account earlier that credited the NCAA attorneys with making persuasive closing arguments by pointing out that an anti-trust violation is defined by damage to the consumer not damage to the employees or players in this case. I'm not a lawyer but, assuming that is accurate, it's hard to imagine that amateur college athletics has been detrimental to the fans. If anything the amateur model left an opening for a for profit model to enter the market and pay those athletes their true market value outside of any affiliation with a college or university and let them start raking in those obscene minor league profits.
Put me in the "skeptical" boat that this is a good idea.
I agree the NCAA has its problems, but I'm not sure I'd like the alternative any better, if at all. Even with a governing body, there is still rampant monetary and academic violations. What would college football be without the NCAA? It would not be college football anymore. It would resemble the XFL or CFL if you ask me.
The articles that have been mentioned in this thread paint a gloomy picture for Duke football in my opinion. We've fought tooth and nail since Cut has been here to elbow our way to a seat at the grown-ups table. Seperating sports as some have mentioned with basketball staying with NCAA, and football power conferences making their own rules regarding football, I fear we'll be back on the outside looking in again when football is concerned.
As a member of a power conference won't they be on the inside looking out especially is they decide to break away from division one? They may or may not win but at least they'll get paid and be allowed compensate their players in whatever form of compensation is approved. The article linked on the front page mentioned that the transfer rules are a major focus of reform for the power conferences so I'm curious as to what they want to change? Do they want to make it more or less difficult to transfer?
or perhaps we can make a nice league with ND, stanford, NW, and any other school that is interested in having inter collegiate competition rather than semi-professional mostly minor-league caliber athletes many of whom no one would give two shakes about if it didn't happen to say "alabama" on the front of the jersey
1200. DDMF.
I agree one hundred percent with what you say. We're forgetting the mission of the NCAA. It is to provide a regulatory agency for COLLEGE sports. It has no other function. It is under the authority of the member colleges and universities. My contention has been, on this board, that it is up to the presidents of the member institutions and their governing boards. Has anybody heard from them? All competitive sports have rules, rules of eligibility, or competition, or safety, and so on. and the NCAA provides for them in college sports. Without that structure it would be as if nobody is in charge of anything. Come to think of it, that is a problem that goes far beyond college sports, doesn't it?.
I like your idea but I doubt ND will be down with that. Also I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to watch those games because they would not be televised. Or if they are televised they'll make a bunch of money and have to pay their players and then we're right back where we started. The paradox is that I want purified college sports unsullied by big money but I want to watch all the games on ESPN.
The gloom-and-doom talk about the NCAA or Olympic sports or whatever is a total joke, if the concern is the increased stipends for college athletes. The numbers I have seen involve a few thousand a year for a fraction of the athletes. At most, it's a million bucks per year. According to USA Today, the top-revenue athletic program (Texas) earns $165 million in revenue. Number 50 is Iowa State at $62 million. (The list seems to leave out private schools, which have different and more limited reporting on athletic budgets.) The rate of increase per year is at least 2-3 percent, and the new "burden" is less than a year's growth of revenue.
Prediction: ten thou a year for 100 athletes won't amount to a hill of beans at the major athletic programs. The doom-saying is so much throat wash.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
Serious question-- why would the power conferences want to stick with the NCAA for revenue sports (football and basketball) other than inertia? Is there anything the Big Ten, SEC, or ACC gain out of being associated with the MAC and Southern Conference? There is most certainly something they lose -- money and control. Is there any question that the power conferences could make more money if they did not share football and basketball TV monies with the small guys?
I know many folks say the power conferences want no part of trying to manage things like volleyball, water polo, and even baseball (though I suspect the college world series is going to soon turn baseball into at least a revenue neutral sport if not a money maker) but there are easy answers to that question that do not involve the big conferences giving away hundreds of millions of dollars every year in revenue sharing with the smaller conferences.
Change is a-coming, we all know it.
-Jason "as a member of the ACC, I don't think the coming changes will hurt Duke football as much as some others do" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?