Clear cut, open & shut. Title IX is a federal mandate. Has nothing to do with how much income the sport generates. So yeah...there's that
Judge rules against NCAA
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
The decision forbids individuals to be paid differently. The whole team has to get a fixed % based on those otherwise eligible. It will make being in the 85 bigger though. Only the 85 in football can get the % licensing deferred distribution.
is every jersey number even sold?
i would think that tells you a little bit about whether it's the player or the school.
how many cade foster jerseys are out there as opposed to aj mcarron jerseys?
If I read the ruling correctly, the sky isn't falling for the college football model, at least not yet.
Payment is limited to $5k per student per year. That's only $425k per school for 85 scholarship athletes. Not a huge deal for most big- to medium-sized programs.
If this ruling means that the NCAA or the Big 5 conferences can negotiate a licensing deal for a new video game w/o fear of litigation, then that deal, alone, would likely more than pay for the new cost.
Payment is limited to $5k per student per year. That's only $425k per school for 85 scholarship athletes. Not a huge deal for most big- to medium-sized programs.
If this ruling means that the NCAA or the Big 5 conferences can negotiate a licensing deal for a new video game w/o fear of litigation, then that deal, alone, would likely more than pay for the new cost.
That's interesting and doesn't seem to follow the logic of the ruling in general. If the NCAA is damaging players acting as a cartel and by not allowing them to make money off of their images, I don't see how anyone could argue that individuals should not be able to negotiate on their own behalf to earn as much money as the market will bear. As an example, what if an Olympic gold medalist is on your school's gymnastics team. Before this ruling, that gymnast could make nothing from his/her likeness - could not make money doing commercials and the like. This changes that. Not sure how that will lead to individuals being paid the same amount across a school/conference/NCAA. A player like Yeldon may only get $5k/year from Alabama, but Alabama could help him make an additional $100k/year doing commercials.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree. If you look at the sales of say Julio's jersey. How may would have been sold had he played for UT Chattanooga. TO played for them if I remember correctly. How may TO jersey's for UTC are out there. There is a huge component of the fan base tied directly to the sales of Jersey's. I have no doubt more Julio jerseys sold than any because he was a great player, but playing for Alabama was the reason there more sales in general.
BTW, I guessing the Judge was from California. It appears O'bannon is hawking Toyota's now. I wonder if he would be so interested in the whole concept of his image had he saved some of his NBA money. Speaking of which, how many thing O'bannon would have even had an NBA career without playing for UCLA?
Well, we're saying the same thing. There's zero doubt Julio (to continue the example) got far more coverage because he played at Alabama. No one would dispute that. And that coverage is what allowed his image, his number for example, to become so popular. But it also takes the great player to see these jerseys blow off the rack. Both parts make the whole, and until now, one part of that combination got far more compensation from the deal than the other.
And I'd argue that the player, literally laying his body on the line day in and out, stands to lose a lot more if something goes wrong than the university does.
My point is simply that for too long, the major schools (in particular) have made ridiculous amounts of money based on the players (not just the star players, either - as WMack said above, 'how many people would show up to BDS to watch the grass grow?' (paraphrased)) and the players, who lay their bodies, their health on the line every day, gain far less.
Is that correct though? I would think Title IX would require that you pay all student athletes the $5K. So it is much larger. The Big 5 can likely afford that, but what about the others?
Exactly! These rulings against EA Sports and NCAA are ridiculous. The jerseys are the ownership of the schools, not the players. It's about the schools they represent (the TEAM) not the name on the back(the individual). College (academics and athletics) is supposed to be about preparing the students for their careers (AFTER COLLEGE) not getting paid salaries while in college. That is what the NFL is for and whatever other profession a student goes into after graduation. This "pay for play" thing is going to bring down and be the demise of college football, sooner or later...
How much is a player awarded through scholarships, educational opportunity, athletic opportunity, tutoring, etc by a school? How much is enough? Once the genie is out of the bottle it will never be put back in.
Edit to add: None of the players are forced to play football or any sport. They accept the terms of their scholarship freely and may opt out at any time. Just as Americans are free to accept a job for minimum wage or require more for their services the players can further their education without playing a sport if they wish. There are thousands who would take their place. A judgement which forces payment in disregard of a previous agreement in these matters is no different than awarding settlements for previous players because a players union is sanctioned by a court.
My words are inadequate but I see no end to where this may lead.
Edit to add: None of the players are forced to play football or any sport. They accept the terms of their scholarship freely and may opt out at any time. Just as Americans are free to accept a job for minimum wage or require more for their services the players can further their education without playing a sport if they wish. There are thousands who would take their place. A judgement which forces payment in disregard of a previous agreement in these matters is no different than awarding settlements for previous players because a players union is sanctioned by a court.
My words are inadequate but I see no end to where this may lead.
Last edited:
We can afford to pay every athlete the stipend, but what about the lesser programs in the power leagues? If I coached track at Iowa State or Mississippi State I would worry about the Grim Reaper showing up at my office.
Would part of this philosophy include an optional format (or template if you will) where the player gave back to the university community - after the player became financially successful?
The NCAA model, as it has been, in my opinion, was flawed. This resolution doesn't change it completely. Whatever compensation the athletes are entitled to won't be made available to them until upon graduation. I think that's fair.
I keep reading from proponents of the traditional NCAA model that the university provides the athlete with the platform to earn millions. Well, not everyone is going pro. That's just fact. Because as the NCAA has been adamant about saying over the past decade or so, "There are [x amount] of NCAA student athletes, and most of us are going pro in something other than sports."
So for those men & women who go into the workforce, I think it would be a nice gesture (a send off, if you will) to say thanks for all your hard work.
Yeah. They may have gotten a degree, but what does that even really mean any more?
I have a degree and have never been out of work a day in my adult life (thank God), but that has less to do with my degree and more to do with the experience I was able to acquire interning for major companies while I was in school. There were two UA student athletes who spent time with me at the companies. One was a gymnast whose eligibility was up and the other was a football player, but a walk-on. He told me that for the most part, they didn't have time for jobs because football WAS their job.
And let's be honest...a lot of the degrees that SOME of the top athletes get are padded with "soft skills"; no high level math, no high level science, which makes them not very employable, at least at first.
So whatever money they can get after graduating would help some with the transition I would imagine.
I keep reading from proponents of the traditional NCAA model that the university provides the athlete with the platform to earn millions. Well, not everyone is going pro. That's just fact. Because as the NCAA has been adamant about saying over the past decade or so, "There are [x amount] of NCAA student athletes, and most of us are going pro in something other than sports."
So for those men & women who go into the workforce, I think it would be a nice gesture (a send off, if you will) to say thanks for all your hard work.
Yeah. They may have gotten a degree, but what does that even really mean any more?
I have a degree and have never been out of work a day in my adult life (thank God), but that has less to do with my degree and more to do with the experience I was able to acquire interning for major companies while I was in school. There were two UA student athletes who spent time with me at the companies. One was a gymnast whose eligibility was up and the other was a football player, but a walk-on. He told me that for the most part, they didn't have time for jobs because football WAS their job.
And let's be honest...a lot of the degrees that SOME of the top athletes get are padded with "soft skills"; no high level math, no high level science, which makes them not very employable, at least at first.
So whatever money they can get after graduating would help some with the transition I would imagine.
That's what I want, college players spending time making TV commercials. Just what the sport needs.
I think a lot of people missed the limit and without the limit this could be much different. I came up with an idea which sounded somewhat similar to the ruling actually. I said that as soon as a player was used for merchandising, the school should have to pick up the tab on an insurance policy for him (which interestingly enough schools can do now). After re-reading the article, they state $5,000 as the minimum though.
This isn't a catastrophe, but it is a big mess. Under this ruling, "big" college and football programs would have to spend at least $5,000 per year on each player. That's an interesting number, considering that's the stipend number we've already seen tossed around. But, the cap is on the wrong side, leaving the door wide open. I imagine that the schools will try to counter with their $5,000 stipend and an increase in the programs that allow insurance to be paid for by the school. This isn't over yet, and just thinking about how to make this mesh with Title IX makes my head hurt.
But, if at the end of the day all this means is $5,000 a year to student athletes, and less arbitrary restrictions, it could be a good thing. Also, if this means for instance that you can make a Coker jersey, with his name on it, sell it, and give him a cut, who really loses? The issue is how much that sum could become, otherwise it just becomes free agency and bidding wars. I was much happier when I thought it was a $5,000 cap.
Last edited:
It's an unfortunate fact that a lot of the players, even the 4/5*s, can't really handle anything other than a "soft" degree. I've always told myself that even that was better than no degree at all, which is where most of them would be without football (or basketball)...
Extremely complicated subject. I haven't studied it enough to contribute any significant or even any relevant info.
I'll just say this--I think it's right that each player should receive the same stipend. If they're out there doing the work and putting in the time, they should receive the same stipend, regardless of their team status.
On the other hand, I think a percentage of any jersey sales, image usage, etc. should be accrued in an interest bearing trust and paid 100% to the individual athlete after he leaves school, whether he graduates, declares for the draft, or simply decides he doesn't want to play football or attend school anymore.
I've always felt that way.
sip
I'll just say this--I think it's right that each player should receive the same stipend. If they're out there doing the work and putting in the time, they should receive the same stipend, regardless of their team status.
On the other hand, I think a percentage of any jersey sales, image usage, etc. should be accrued in an interest bearing trust and paid 100% to the individual athlete after he leaves school, whether he graduates, declares for the draft, or simply decides he doesn't want to play football or attend school anymore.
I've always felt that way.
sip
they should offer a 4 year program for athletes to take 6 credits per semester and let them earn an associate's degree after 4 years, with the option of completing a bachelor's degree within a couple of years after that.
that would allow serious student athletes take a BA track if the wish but also allow the less capable players to actually study something without the process being a complete farce.
Wide Variance in COA Calculations with No Good Solution for Power Conferences
This was written by John Infante, who runs athleticscholarships.net. He is a former college athletic department employee.
This was written by John Infante, who runs athleticscholarships.net. He is a former college athletic department employee.
This is what he figured up for the SEC schools:
Latest threads
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 1
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-