PDA

View Full Version : O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

jnacc
06-19-2013, 04:45 PM
Funny that there isn't any post (that I'm aware of) made of this situation. If it goes in favor of the plaintiffs then the NCAA, and college hockey as a result, will no longer exist as we know it.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324021104578553690018563254-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_em ail

4four4
06-19-2013, 04:53 PM
They probably will get rid of the athletic scholarship all together and go the D3 model. If so welcome to MJBB, MJFB and MJH.

jnacc
06-19-2013, 05:03 PM
They probably will get rid of the athletic scholarship all together and go the D3 model. If so welcome to MJBB, MJFB and MJH.

I believe that Michigan's AD stated something very similar....

CleggyofUML
06-19-2013, 05:23 PM
Sounds like this whole case was done by some guy who was a good dribbly ball player in college who wasn't good enough to make it in the NBA and now he needs money. They don't realize that they don't have to pay to go to school if they get an athletic scholarship (or at least significantly less) while the average student will leave college with 5 digits in debt? I'd call that payment enough.

Patman
06-19-2013, 06:55 PM
Funny that there isn't any post (that I'm aware of) made of this situation. If it goes in favor of the plaintiffs then the NCAA, and college hockey as a result, will no longer exist as we know it.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324021104578553690018563254-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_em ail

I don't think I'd go quite that far. It just means a lot of things related to the players themselves go poof.

Ok, can't buy that specific numbered shirt, but here's our website letting you choose any number.

I have no sympathy for O'Bannon. I really don't. At best the colleges make an opportunity off of a specific choice one made and likewise players have no right to a shirt number.

The only thing I could see being in iffy territory is the gameworns... That aside, of course, from the NCAA Football series.

Edit: only reason real player pay becomes and issue is if certain schools use this as a guise.

I'd think, except for top players, if you gave them their cut it wouldn't amount to much more than a couple of pizzas.... Assuming its split how it is and not how Michigan will pretend it'll be to bring athletes to campus.

bothman
06-19-2013, 07:40 PM
The single best article I have read on the notion of paying college athletes is below. It's a very compelling article and one I would encourage all fans of college sports to read:

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

Tipsy McStagger
06-19-2013, 10:04 PM
Sounds like this whole case was done by some guy who was a good dribbly ball player in college who wasn't good enough to make it in the NBA and now he needs money. They don't realize that they don't have to pay to go to school if they get an athletic scholarship (or at least significantly less) while the average student will leave college with 5 digits in debt? I'd call that payment enough.
Sounds like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Ed O'Bannon was the best player in college basketball in 1995. He led UCLA to a national title. He WAS good enough to make it to the NBA. He was the 9th pick in the draft. I am sure he does realize that he didn't have to pay to go to college. And it isn't payment enough. You were wrong about everything you just posted.

O'Bannon and other superstars sell tickets, merchandise and concessions. Not only that, but it turns out they get more students to apply to the university they go to.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/the-flutie-effect-how-athletic-success-boosts-college-applications/
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx

How much money does that generate for the universities? Quite a bit. Basketball and football players basically subsidize the scholarships for every other sport. Not only that, coaches and athletic directors get rich off the backs of the athletes. Amateurism was basically invented to not have to pay athletes. Read the article bothman posted above. It is really all you need to know about this issue.

jnacc
06-19-2013, 10:08 PM
Sounds like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Ed O'Bannon was the best player in college basketball in 1995. He led UCLA to a national title. He WAS good enough to make it to the NBA. He was the 9th pick in the draft. I am sure he does realize that he didn't have to pay to go to college. And it isn't payment enough. You were wrong about everything you just posted.

O'Bannon and other superstars sell tickets, merchandise and concessions. Not only that, but it turns out they get more students to apply to the university they go to.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/the-flutie-effect-how-athletic-success-boosts-college-applications/
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx

How much money does that generate for the universities? Quite a bit. Basketball and football players basically subsidize the scholarships for every other sport. Not only that, coaches and athletic directors get rich off the backs of the athletes. Amateurism was basically invented to not have to pay athletes. Read the article bothman posted above. It is really all you need to know about this issue.

I certainly understand what you are saying and believe me, I sympathize with players like O'Bannon but I must say that I fear the repercussions that this law suit will bring forth, if won. You do realize that everything, and I mean everything will change in college athletics! Hockey will be impacted just as much as football and basketball will.

Patman
06-20-2013, 12:49 AM
Sounds like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Ed O'Bannon was the best player in college basketball in 1995. He led UCLA to a national title. He WAS good enough to make it to the NBA. He was the 9th pick in the draft. I am sure he does realize that he didn't have to pay to go to college. And it isn't payment enough. You were wrong about everything you just posted.

O'Bannon and other superstars sell tickets, merchandise and concessions. Not only that, but it turns out they get more students to apply to the university they go to.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/the-flutie-effect-how-athletic-success-boosts-college-applications/
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx

How much money does that generate for the universities? Quite a bit. Basketball and football players basically subsidize the scholarships for every other sport. Not only that, coaches and athletic directors get rich off the backs of the athletes. Amateurism was basically invented to not have to pay athletes. Read the article bothman posted above. It is really all you need to know about this issue.

They aren't conscripts so its immaterial. The only thing that matters, IMO, is that to which they did not sign over their rights which is their likeness.

As for amateur athletics, I think both sides know what they're getting into when they do that. Its an apprenticeship of sorts. For that they get excellent trainers, lots of food, opportunities to travel, BMOC status, and often discounted or free education. When you are an amateur YOU VOLUNTEER. YOU made that decision. You aren't owed a right as such. Did you know that graduate school work, which could be highly valuable to a university, is not yours. It belongs to the university. A professor develops a patent and immediately transfers it to the school. In all these cases the people were free to choose given the choices in front of them.

Now, one could argue that the market is held tight and is some form of anti-trust collusion. But that's an entirely different argument which has little to do with the appropriation of a person's image.

Tipsy McStagger
06-20-2013, 10:44 AM
They aren't conscripts so its immaterial. The only thing that matters, IMO, is that to which they did not sign over their rights which is their likeness.

As for amateur athletics, I think both sides know what they're getting into when they do that. Its an apprenticeship of sorts. For that they get excellent trainers, lots of food, opportunities to travel, BMOC status, and often discounted or free education. When you are an amateur YOU VOLUNTEER. YOU made that decision. You aren't owed a right as such. Did you know that graduate school work, which could be highly valuable to a university, is not yours. It belongs to the university. A professor develops a patent and immediately transfers it to the school. In all these cases the people were free to choose given the choices in front of them.

Now, one could argue that the market is held tight and is some form of anti-trust collusion. But that's an entirely different argument which has little to do with the appropriation of a person's image.
Did you read any of the articles linked to in this thread?

Jasma
06-20-2013, 01:31 PM
I don't think I'd go quite that far. It just means a lot of things related to the players themselves go poof.

Ok, can't buy that specific numbered shirt, but here's our website letting you choose any number.

I have no sympathy for O'Bannon. I really don't. At best the colleges make an opportunity off of a specific choice one made and likewise players have no right to a shirt number.

The only thing I could see being in iffy territory is the gameworns... That aside, of course, from the NCAA Football series.

Edit: only reason real player pay becomes and issue is if certain schools use this as a guise.

I'd think, except for top players, if you gave them their cut it wouldn't amount to much more than a couple of pizzas.... Assuming its split how it is and not how Michigan will pretend it'll be to bring athletes to campus.

I don't think the lawsuit speaks to jersey numbers, etc., so much as the likeness of the athletes themselves. Images of specific athletes are used to promote television broadcasts and NCAA tournament games. There have been licensed video games that use specific players. With the high def, high tech capabilities of the computer industry, there is little room for doubt just who is being depicted in these games and the NCAA keeps the royalties.

It will be very interesting to watch this unfold. I doubt that any court will actually allow the NCAA to be dismantled, but there could very well be a negotiated settlement costing the NCAA millions a year and allowing athletes to get a little more pocket change.

Tipsy McStagger
06-20-2013, 02:39 PM
It will be very interesting to watch this unfold. I doubt that any court will actually allow the NCAA to be dismantled, but there could very well be a negotiated settlement costing the NCAA millions a year and allowing athletes to get a little more pocket change.
Why do you doubt that a court would allow the NCAA to be dismantled (or for current and former players to get a portion of the revenues they generate, which you seem to assume would be the downfall of the NCAA)?

LynahFan
06-23-2013, 02:59 AM
Now, one could argue that the market is held tight and is some form of anti-trust collusion. But that's an entirely different argument which has little to do with the appropriation of a person's image.No - that IS the argument: that the schools/NCAA have colluded to decide that none of them will negotiate with athletes for their services and will strip them 100% of their ability to profit from their participation.


I certainly understand what you are saying and believe me, I sympathize with players like O'Bannon but I must say that I fear the repercussions that this law suit will bring forth, if won. You do realize that everything, and I mean everything will change in college athletics! Hockey will be impacted just as much as football and basketball will.Not liking the outcome is an excuse for continuing an unjust system? The changes brought about would pale in comparison to the changes wrought by emancipating the slaves, extending the franchise to women, desegregating schools, etc, and yet we had the courage to face those changes. I'm sure the outcome would be even worse for my alma mater than most: if colleges were suddenly allowed to negotiate individual contracts with athletes, you can bet that the Ivy League would not be handing out the most lucrative contracts.

HarleyMC
06-23-2013, 07:37 AM
Nice try on O'Bannon's part, but pack it up bro...this debate has been going on for years and most likely the general approach of the NCAA's compensation package for college athletes at member institutions will inevitably remain the same. If this goes to Congress, expect the NCAA to receive an anti-trust exemption with a few compliant tweeks in the current system. Yeah, the greed factor in college sports is morally repugnant, but in reality it's the ubiquitous market forces of obsession for sports entertainment in America's consumer culture that have essentially professionalized college sports.

So don't hold your breath for legislation that agrees to pay college athletes. Let's not forget the #1 responsibility of US colleges and universities is to educate. If college athletes want to clamor for a share in a revenue stream, they can always opt out for a professional or semi-pro tryout and attempt to market their talent there for pay. When a college athlete signs the LOI and scholarship agreement they receive a free education, room and board, medical care, tutors, and other perks as well as an opportunity to showcase their talent on local and nationwide media coverage. IMO that's one hell of a deal...especially with the rising costs of education today.

JDUBBS1280
06-23-2013, 10:01 AM
Sounds like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Ed O'Bannon was the best player in college basketball in 1995. He led UCLA to a national title. He WAS good enough to make it to the NBA. He was the 9th pick in the draft. I am sure he does realize that he didn't have to pay to go to college. And it isn't payment enough. You were wrong about everything you just posted.

O'Bannon and other superstars sell tickets, merchandise and concessions. Not only that, but it turns out they get more students to apply to the university they go to.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/the-flutie-effect-how-athletic-success-boosts-college-applications/
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx

How much money does that generate for the universities? Quite a bit. Basketball and football players basically subsidize the scholarships for every other sport. Not only that, coaches and athletic directors get rich off the backs of the athletes. Amateurism was basically invented to not have to pay athletes. Read the article bothman posted above. It is really all you need to know about this issue.

Football and Basketball don't subsidize hockey at every school.

Tipsy McStagger
06-23-2013, 11:58 AM
Football and Basketball don't subsidize hockey at every school.

I didn't say that they did. They do at some schools. I was talking about other sports.

WisconsinWildcard
06-23-2013, 11:58 AM
Football and Basketball don't subsidize hockey at every school.

That is probably why he said basically. You know...to summarize a more complicated issue with a simpler statement.

Tipsy McStagger
06-23-2013, 12:20 PM
Nice try on O'Bannon's part, but pack it up bro...this debate has been going on for years and most likely the general approach of the NCAA's compensation package for college athletes at member institutions will inevitably remain the same. If this goes to Congress, expect the NCAA to receive an anti-trust exemption with a few compliant tweeks in the current system. Yeah, the greed factor in college sports is morally repugnant, but in reality it's the ubiquitous market forces of obsession for sports entertainment in America's consumer culture that have essentially professionalized college sports.

So don't hold your breath for legislation that agrees to pay college athletes. Let's not forget the #1 responsibility of US colleges and universities is to educate. If college athletes want to clamor for a share in a revenue stream, they can always opt out for a professional or semi-pro tryout and attempt to market their talent there for pay. When a college athlete signs the LOI and scholarship agreement they receive a free education, room and board, medical care, tutors, and other perks as well as an opportunity to showcase their talent on local and nationwide media coverage. IMO that's one hell of a deal...especially with the rising costs of education today.
Your opinion is a ******** one. You think these guys need college to showcase their talent? People that follow basketball knew who LeBron James was when he was in 7th grade. The NFL and NBA have rules that prevent players from coming into their leagues out of high school. So your "they can always opt out" comment is bullcrap. Not only that, they aren't guaranteed to have all four years of college paid for. If a guy blows his knee out, the coach doesn't have to renew his scholarship.
The NCAA made almost $800 million on last years basketball tournament. But a player gets so much as a free sandwich, he gets suspended. It is not a "hell of a deal".

HarleyMC
06-24-2013, 03:05 AM
Your opinion is a ******** one. You think these guys need college to showcase their talent? People that follow basketball knew who LeBron James was when he was in 7th grade.

Lebron James is the exception, not the rule.


The NFL and NBA have rules that prevent players from coming into their leagues out of high school. So your "they can always opt out" comment is bullcrap.

The minimum age for entry into the NBA is 19. The NBA collective bargaining agreement ratified in 2006 requires that entrants be at least one year removed from high school. Instead of college, players can "opt" to showcase their talent elsewhere in an overseas pro league or semi-pro for pay.


A high school player must wait at least a year to be eligible for selection. However, they are not required to spend that year in college. In 2008, high school star Brandon Jennings decided to skip college and play professional basketball in Italy. After a year, he was eligible for the 2009 Draft and was selected 10th by the Milwaukee Bucks.[19] In the 2010 Draft, Latavious Williams, who did not qualify academically to go to college, spent a year playing in the NBA D-League before he was drafted in the second round.

Some players support the new age limit. Gerald Green called it "a smart move", saying that "[not everybody is] LeBron James ... He came in ready and he dominated the league. There's a lot of players that have to get developed. Me, I've got to get developed. But I guess that age limit, that one year of college experience, can get you more developed and I think that's pretty good."


But a player gets so much as a free sandwich, he gets suspended. It is not a "hell of a deal".

Funny comment (although not out of character for you).:D Student athletes get all the "free sandwiches" they need as part of their on campus or off campus meal allowance.:rolleyes: College Athletes Need No Paychecks (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/14032671/hold-the-sympathy-college-athletes-need-no-paychecks).

leonamccauley
06-24-2013, 07:15 AM
I believe that Michigan's AD stated something very similar....
Had heard of Michigan long back.