• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Anti-trust lawsuit against NCAA

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jaxbuck said:
As far as OSU (or any major college) fielding a team of actual scholar athletes, I think that's the biggest departure from what currently exists and therefore the least likely outcome. We currently have a lucrative, semi pro football system now in all but name. It's a lot easier to just tweak that that burn it all to the ground and start over.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not so naive as to think we would end up fielding a team of Rhodes Scholar candidates. I do think that Ohio State can field a team--providing the rest of college football put down their illiterates and all slowly backed away--a program where the players are at least within shooting distance of the bottom of the normal student pool. A kid with a 950 on his SAT and some tutoring can probably get through an easy major at Ohio State or at the very least maintain his eligibility in a legitimate manner, and quite frankly that probably is the majority of Ohio State football players right now. But college football--us included--are often operating way down below that 950 kid.

Do you really not have a problem with Ohio State bringing kids with third and fourth grade reading levels onto campus to play football? Have you not wondered a little bit what may have needed to be done to keep them eligible? Seriously, how does someone with a third grade reading level get through even the easiest 100 level class? It may not be technically illiterate. I'm sure that they can sound their way through a sports page, but it sure as shit is functionally illiterate. And looking at it from the other side of the coin, I think it's perverse to force these kids to go through the farce of pretending to be college students when all they want to do is earn some money while preparing for the NFL.
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye said:
Look, I'm not so naive as to think we would end up fielding a team of Rhodes Scholar candidates. I do think that Ohio State can field a team--providing the rest of college football put down their illiterates and all slowly backed away--a program where the players are at least within shooting distance of the bottom of the normal student pool. A kid with a 950 on his SAT and some tutoring can probably get through an easy major at Ohio State or at the very least maintain his eligibility in a legitimate manner, and quite frankly that probably is the majority of Ohio State football players right now. But college football--us included--are often operating way down below that 950 kid.

Do you really not have a problem with Ohio State bringing kids with third and fourth grade reading levels onto campus to play football? Have you not wondered a little bit what may have needed to be done to keep them eligible? Seriously, how does someone with a third grade reading level get through even the easiest 100 level class? It may not be technically illiterate. I'm sure that they can sound their way through a sports page, but it sure as [Mark May] is functionally illiterate. And looking at it from the other side of the coin, I think it's perverse to force these kids to go through the farce of pretending to be college students when all they want to do is earn some money while preparing for the NFL.
Click to expand...

I have a huge problem with Ohio State, or any university, bringing in the functionally illiterate and perpetuating the myth of the student athlete.

Like I have said before, I am in business not education so that creates the lens with which I view the world. In my way of thinking I believe in specialization of tasks. Educators educate, football guys run football operations. Football operations are a farmed out, 3rd party enterprise that the University leases space to and lets use the name.

When Bobby Joe Jimbob is done playing foosball the University owes him the equivalent of a 4 year education at whatever school he qualifies for and some degree of health care similar to what Vets get for a GI Bill and VA medical.

While jethro is playing foosball, he just plays fucking foosball and gets paid what the business can afford to pay him. If he never goes to college afterward it's on him.

Just my .02
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
You're admitting that it's not a coincidence that they're selling player driven jerseys while simultaneously asking why that is objectionable?
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm "admitting" that in the sense that I fully agreed from the outset that that is the case. And more specifically on the point of objectionableness, I'm asking why that is a more objectionable way for the University to profit, in part, from the popularity of individual players than all of the other various ways that the University, in my opinion, does so.

I understand the criticism about the NCAA's shallow rules regarding jerseys, and that's a legitimate criticism. But if you're looking at the situation from the perspective of players' interests as opposed to NCAA "hypocrisy", it isn't clear to me star QB #5 has a greater claim on a portion of jersey revenues than he does on a portion of ticket revenues. Or how it benefits him to make that distinction.
 
Upvote 0
BUCKYLE said:
If it wasn't absurd to begin with, they'd put the player's name on it.
Click to expand...
Well, the most obvious way they could make that less absurd is by putting the players' names on the jerseys, selling them that way (and probably still not cutting paychecks based on jersey sales to the players). I assume that would make the NCAA less absurd in your eyes, but it wouldn't do anything about player compensation and has more to do with "pointless but harmless NCAA rules" than with players' rights. An approach they could take alternatively (or additionally) is to cut paychecks to players on based on individual number/name jersey sales. Which brings me back to my earlier question of why players are more entitled to that than they are to percentage of ticket sales, tv revenues, etc. If your position is that players should receive all of the above then jerseys in particular probably aren't much worth talking about.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
Well, the most obvious way they could make that less absurd is by putting the players' names on the jerseys, selling them that way (and probably still not cutting paychecks based on jersey sales to the players). I assume that would make the NCAA less absurd in your eyes, but it wouldn't do anything about player compensation and has more to do with "pointless but harmless NCAA rules" than with players' rights. An approach they could take alternatively (or additionally) is to cut paychecks to players on based on individual number/name jersey sales. Which brings me back to my earlier question of why players are more entitled to that than they are to percentage of ticket sales, tv revenues, etc. If your position is that players should receive all of the above then jerseys in particular probably aren't much worth talking about.
Click to expand...

To put it another way, if players are not going to directly receive proceeds from jersey sales either way, do you think it harms them in any way to leave their names off the jerseys? Aside from whether you think it is absurd or hypocritical?
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
Yes, I'm "admitting" that in the sense that I fully agreed from the outset that that is the case. And more specifically on the point of objectionableness, I'm asking why that is a more objectionable way for the University to profit, in part, from the popularity of individual players than all of the other various ways that the University, in my opinion, does so.
Click to expand...
Because grandma or clueless joe bleeds scarlet and gray and barely knows any names at all. She can love the team without knowing the individuals she is cheering on in person or from home.
I understand the criticism about the NCAA's shallow rules regarding jerseys, and that's a legitimate criticism. But if you're looking at the situation from the perspective of players' interests as opposed to NCAA "hypocrisy", it isn't clear to me star QB #5 has a greater claim on a portion of jersey revenues than he does on a portion of ticket revenues. Or how it benefits him to make that distinction.
Click to expand...
As a layman, it seems like a much easier case to make from a lawsuit standpoint as his value and involvement in the value of the item is much simpler. Setting that aside, it benefits him because you could give them a portion of likeness revenue without bringing the whole system down.
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye said:
Look, I'm not so naive as to think we would end up fielding a team of Rhodes Scholar candidates. I do think that Ohio State can field a team--providing the rest of college football put down their illiterates and all slowly backed away--a program where the players are at least within shooting distance of the bottom of the normal student pool. A kid with a 950 on his SAT and some tutoring can probably get through an easy major at Ohio State or at the very least maintain his eligibility in a legitimate manner, and quite frankly that probably is the majority of Ohio State football players right now. But college football--us included--are often operating way down below that 950 kid.

Do you really not have a problem with Ohio State bringing kids with third and fourth grade reading levels onto campus to play football? Have you not wondered a little bit what may have needed to be done to keep them eligible? Seriously, how does someone with a third grade reading level get through even the easiest 100 level class? It may not be technically illiterate. I'm sure that they can sound their way through a sports page, but it sure as [Mark May] is functionally illiterate. And looking at it from the other side of the coin, I think it's perverse to force these kids to go through the farce of pretending to be college students when all they want to do is earn some money while preparing for the NFL.
Click to expand...
I can agree with the principle but I struggle to find where the line should be. It seems like an arbitrary one based on how much you're willing to sacrifice academics to preserve athletics. That's not a shot at you, I think we all have relative ethics on that sort of thing, just on different places on the spectrum.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
Because grandma or clueless joe bleeds scarlet and gray and barely knows any names at all. She can love the team without knowing the individuals she is cheering on in person or from home.
Click to expand...
Sure she can. And clueless joe can buy a 00 or retired number jersey if that's all that is available. But I would feel pretty confident in saying that revenues from jerseys and other things increase as a direct result of the popularity and performance of star players. You can speculate about the magnitude of the effect for different revenue streams, but I think it's probably going to be just that - qualitative speculation.
jwinslow said:
As a layman, it seems like a much easier case to make from a lawsuit standpoint as his value and involvement in the value of the item is much simpler. Setting that aside, it benefits him because you could give them a portion of likeness revenue without bringing the whole system down.
Click to expand...
I assumed you were making an argument based on what you feel is "right" rather than what is legal. As far as what is legal, that is perhaps the best argument for leaving players' names off the jerseys. I'm not an expert in this, but I think we're talking about trademark here. Braxton Miller can claim he has some trademark rights in his name (although I suspect he assigns a good portion of those to OSU). I don't think Braxton Miller has much of a claim that he has trademark rights in nameless OSU jersey #5.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
I can agree with the principle but I struggle to find where the line should be. It seems like an arbitrary one based on how much you're willing to sacrifice academics to preserve athletics. That's not a shot at you, I think we all have relative ethics on that sort of thing, just on different places on the spectrum.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. That it's a problem is pretty apparent, but how and where do you draw the line in dealing with it? Do you not allow any leeway for athletic admissions? I don't think so, if you're allowing it in other areas. And what of the open admission universities? Do you tell them that they have to maintain higher admission standards for football players than for normal students?

The one aspect to a true minor league that makes me support it so much is that I think its existence will largely solve 90% of this particular problem. Vince Young went to Texas because he had no other realistic options to hone his skills for the NFL. Given such an option, I think most--if not all--of those 3rd grade readers (and I'm guessing we didn't take a chance on this kid because he was destined to be a bench warmer) will opt for the minor leagues.

Of course, that then brings up the question of boosters (and in many cases coaches and universities) trying to outbid that 40K salary under the table.

Lotta in and outs to this case, man. Lotta strands in ol' Duder's head. I just think it's become an increasingly serious problem that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure if my solution is workable, realistic or even the best one (probably neither). I just think it's one possible solution to the problem.
 
Upvote 0
On jersey sales -

I have a scarlet #7 Jersey. Who can tell me who should have received the player compensation when I purchased it? Ted Ginn? Derek Ross? Duanne Crooks? Joe Germaine? Jordan Hall? Joey Galloway? Antonio Henton? Chris Gamble? Corny Green?
 
Upvote 0
If you add a players cut into the mix I have the following questions...

  • How many different numbers per university would be allowed to sell each year?
Ohio State could potentially sustain 3-4 numbers, while Indiana could sustain selling their hideous candy cane warmup pants.
  • Do you cap the income earnings potential?
QB at big blue blood school will be astronomically higher than Memphis, Ark St, Texas St, etc. Also, if you do the problem evolves into a different argument down the road. What about the lineman on both sides of the ball? Not very many 76 jerseys out there.
  • Governing body/process who determines what numbers are chosen?
Recruiting pitches will escalate rapidly to "come here and we'll get your number on the shelves freshman year!"

I am a free market/capitalist whore. Let the markets dictate how things work. But in the case of the college athlete situation, I'm not convinced that percentage of jersey sales make a dent in the problem. I think it will only strengthen the top tier programs; now since I happen to be a fan of one of those programs and arguably amongst the elite financial situations I may be wise to bang the free market drum. I just think this issue is larger.

I like the idea that was posted earlier. To the effect of come play football here and we owe you a college degree from our university at an undetermined date in the future. Provide the athlete the choice of attending school while they play or focusing on football. I'm sure there are holes in that argument as well.
 
Upvote 0
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-wildcats-union-representatives-head-congress

NW union reps off to Congress

The leaders who are attempting to unionize Northwestern football players will take their case to Capitol Hill lawmakers, aiming to protect the historic victory union organizers achieved last week.

Ramogi Huma, president of the College Athletes Players Association, told "Outside the Lines" that he and Kain Colter, the former Northwestern quarterback, will be in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday and Thursday for informational briefings with an undisclosed set of legislators.

"We want them to understand why we're doing what we're doing," Huma said. "Obviously, Congress has the power to affect conditions for college athletes as well, and we want to correct some of the false statements that have been made about what we're trying to do."

The closed-door meetings will follow mixed reaction among key politicians to last week's decision by the Chicago office of the National Labor Relations Board that football players at Northwestern qualify as employees under the definition established by federal labor law.

Strong support came from Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), whose son played soccer at the University of Virginia. He told The Washington Post, "Of course they should be able to organize. The way these people are treated by the NCAA and the universities themselves is really unpardonable, and I wish them well. I'll do anything I can to help."

Far less enthused was Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a former U.S. Department of Education secretary and former president of the University of Tennessee.

"Imagine a university's basketball players striking before a Sweet 16 game demanding shorter practices, bigger dorm rooms, better food and no classes before 11 a.m.," he said. "This is an absurd decision that will destroy intercollegiate athletics as we know it."

Cont'd ...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top