O'Bannon vs the NCAA ruling

[Legacy]

NCAA loses massive O'Bannon trial, but not by much. Full ruling here

What the O’Bannon Ruling Means for Colleges and Players

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

NCAA loses massive O'Bannon trial, but not by much. Full ruling here

What the O’Bannon Ruling Means for Colleges and Players

I haven't read the opinion, and I probably won't because it's 99 pages and from the sound of news reports... there is basically a 0% chance that it stands if taken up on appeal. I don't know who will win at the Circuit Court level but the judge appears to have invented standards out of whole cloth and just kind of made something up to try and be fair to both sides.

This could get really interesting. As the lawyers here can tell you, this case would be appealed to the 9th Circuit - which is the most infamous federal circuit court in the land. It can be so unpredictable that some other federal courts will basically prohibit citations to 9th Circuit cases.

 

[Irish#1]

I haven't read the opinion, and I probably won't because it's 99 pages and from the sound of news reports... there is basically a 0% chance that it stands if taken up on appeal. I don't know who will win at the Circuit Court level but the judge appears to have invented standards out of whole cloth and just kind of made something up to try and be fair to both sides.

This could get really interesting. As the lawyers here can tell you, this case would be appealed to the 9th Circuit - which is the most infamous federal circuit court in the land. It can be so unpredictable that some other federal courts will basically prohibit citations to 9th Circuit cases.

Agree, don't see this as meaning much until it gets all the way to the Supreme Court. This is just the type of case that will make its way there. Although, given the NCAA's recent decision on the Power 5, it wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA works out some type of agreement.

 

[Legacy]

Heart of the Matter

Heart of the Matter

I haven't read the opinion, and I probably won't because it's 99 pages and from the sound of news reports... there is basically a 0% chance that it stands if taken up on appeal. I don't know who will win at the Circuit Court level but the judge appears to have invented standards out of whole cloth and just kind of made something up to try and be fair to both sides.

This could get really interesting. As the lawyers here can tell you, this case would be appealed to the 9th Circuit - which is the most infamous federal circuit court in the land. It can be so unpredictable that some other federal courts will basically prohibit citations to 9th Circuit cases.

This and the other lawsuits waiting in the wings to be heard will change the college football model of amateurism forever. The decision here is based on judicial decisions on anti-trust and restraint of free trade.

The restraint of trade and anti-trust arguments in O'Bannon established that:

• no other avenue exists for athletes to realistically prepare for potential professional careers than D-1 football and basketball;
• a competitive marketplace for licensing athlete's names, images and likenesses exists, and the NCAA is the only current agent for providing these licenses;
• the NCAA regulations prohibit athletes from signing such licensing agreements and limit the amount of compensation an athlete can earn;
• the NCAA is described in their own economics textbook as "a cartel";
• the NCAA's own expert testified that the NCAA operates as a “joint venture which imposes restraints” on trade;

The only issue to be decided then was whether the restraints on an athlete's right to free trade of his name, likeness and image (for video games, for instance) was procompetitive - promoting competition in the marketplace - or anti-competitive. An example of contracts that are pro-competitive would be those in the BCS agreement or in the College Football Playoff. These promote consumer demand and increase markets for a product for the benefit of all parties, though they restrain parties.

The NCAA argued that restraining trade on players' rights were pro-competitive by promoting consumer demand for its product by preserving its tradition of amateurism in college sports. This point went to the heart of amateurism.

The Court found that the NCAA’s restrictions on student-athlete compensation are not the driving force behind consumer demand for FBS football and Division I basketball-related products - and that this was an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Court found that plantiffs' had rights to competition in a market free from those restrictions by the NCAA.

Of course, this case will be appealed, but, in the meantime, Jenkins vs the NCAA is looming. That case seeks to undo the NCAA’s economic model and essentially turn college athletics into a free market. O'Bannon just showed the way to attack the NCAA.

 

[NCND]

Man eff this guy. He's made my summer longer by making EA cancel the Ncaa football game for this yr.. again, eff him.

 

[koonja]

I've never paid attention to conference reallignment or 'power 5' predictions because I believe ND is ahead of the game (half-ass alligning with ACC was brilliant) and will allign themselves for all possible outcomes, and secondly, because there's so much debate on it and it always seems to change.

Can someone sum up what the power 5 is? I assume it's the 5 major conferences starting their own 'NCAA'?

So what about the Cincinnati's, USF's, Boise St, etc? Wouldn't they just want to join? If they joined, what difference would you have in competition? Or would teams like that essentially become D1-A.

I guess I'm asking, why 'power 5s' want a power 5? What don't they like about the current system?

And is ND ready for this? They'd join the ACC I assume, and not have a choice of independence anymore?

Or does this have more to do with paying athletes? I'd be fine with a stipend for every college athlete, but nothing over like $5K per semester max. No reason for it considering all of the support they already have.

Lastly - I don't think bagmen-type issues will ever cease, unless it's the absolute death penalty for the athlete. Even if they only catch 10% of the kids getting paid on the side, no matter if they're about to EE or about to graduate, they never play college sports, period. That's the only deterent, IMO. IF the school was in anyway turning a blind eye, hit them hard too.

I wrote this in about a minute, so have mercy, dshans.

 

[wizards8507]

Can someone sum up what the power 5 is? I assume it's the 5 major conferences starting their own 'NCAA'?

ACC, PAC-12, Big 10, Big 12, SEC plus Notre Dame.

So what about the Cincinnati's, USF's, Boise St, etc? Wouldn't they just want to join? If they joined, what difference would you have in competition? Or would teams like that essentially become D1-A.

They could join if admitted to one of those conferences, but they'd have to play by the new "Power 5" rules, which smaller schools likely couldn't afford to stay competitive.

I guess I'm asking, why 'power 5s' want a power 5? What don't they like about the current system?

They don't like being told what to do by the NCAA. They don't like restrictions on athlete benefits in the name of protecting the smaller schools that wouldn't be able to keep up in a recruiting arms race.

And is ND ready for this? They'd join the ACC I assume, and not have a choice of independence anymore?

ND is included in the "Power 5" as it is.

Or does this have more to do with paying athletes? I'd be fine with a stipend for every college athlete, but nothing over like $5K per semester max. No reason for it considering all of the support they already have.

See above.

 

[Irishbounty28]

Pretty good breakdown wizards. I was going to answer but it seemed like too much work. ha

 

[koonja]

ACC, PAC-12, Big 10, Big 12, SEC plus Notre Dame.


They could join if admitted to one of those conferences, but they'd have to play by the new "Power 5" rules, which smaller schools likely couldn't afford to stay competitive.


They don't like being told what to do by the NCAA. They don't like restrictions on athlete benefits in the name of protecting the smaller schools that wouldn't be able to keep up in a recruiting arms race.


ND is included in the "Power 5" as it is.


See above.

Awesome, thanks. So seems like ND would be just fine. That's gotta piss a lot of people and schools off, lol.

I guess I don't like the idea if it's so 'power 5' can make its own rules on 'benefits'. I fucking hate the idea of college sports becoming pros. I don't even watch the NFL anymore. Not because I'm against it, but when Brett Favre left the Packers, that was all I could take. I loved that man more than Greg Bryant will ever be loved, and I just never got back into the NFL, because the college football atmosphere trumps it.

The college feel is unbeatable, IMO, and it's because of the students pride in representing their school. Further alienate the athletes from the students, and the students will become less passionate. Just my wild prediction.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Quoted the wrong post.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

This and the other lawsuits waiting in the wings to be heard will change the college football model of amateurism forever. The decision here is based on judicial decisions on anti-trust and restraint of free trade.

The restraint of trade and anti-trust arguments in O'Bannon established that:

• no other avenue exists for athletes to realistically prepare for potential professional careers than D-1 football and basketball;
• a competitive marketplace for licensing athlete's names, images and likenesses exists, and the NCAA is the only current agent for providing these licenses;
• the NCAA regulations prohibit athletes from signing such licensing agreements and limit the amount of compensation an athlete can earn;
• the NCAA is described in their own economics textbook as "a cartel";
• the NCAA's own expert testified that the NCAA operates as a “joint venture which imposes restraints” on trade;

The only issue to be decided then was whether the restraints on an athlete's right to free trade of his name, likeness and image (for video games, for instance) was procompetitive - promoting competition in the marketplace - or anti-competitive. An example of contracts that are pro-competitive would be those in the BCS agreement or in the College Football Playoff. These promote consumer demand and increase markets for a product for the benefit of all parties, though they restrain parties.

The NCAA argued that restraining trade on players' rights were pro-competitive by promoting consumer demand for its product by preserving its tradition of amateurism in college sports. This point went to the heart of amateurism.

The Court found that the NCAA’s restrictions on student-athlete compensation are not the driving force behind consumer demand for FBS football and Division I basketball-related products - and that this was an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Court found that plantiffs' had rights to competition in a market free from those restrictions by the NCAA.

Of course, this case will be appealed, but, in the meantime, Jenkins vs the NCAA is looming. That case seeks to undo the NCAA’s economic model and essentially turn college athletics into a free market. O'Bannon just showed the way to attack the NCAA.

What I'm speaking to are issues like creation of the athlete trust for payment, continued prohibitions on athletes using their own likenesses, requirements that compensation be equal among the athletes, etc. the court did find for the plaintiffs but stopped short of adopting a free market based on the idea that some restrictions were legitimate.

The judge may be (almost certainly is) correct on the broad legal issues but the crafted solutions are problematic, IMO, and won't survive a de novo review. So it's almost pointless to discuss how the new system created in the decision will affect the NCAA.

It is the law of the land right now - the judge refused to stay implementation pending appeal - but I don't expect it to last.

 

[wizards8507]

Can someone explain this one to me? From the ESPN article:

That means Football Bowl Subdivision players and Division I basketball players who are on rosters for four years potentially could get no less than $20,000 when they leave school. Wilken wrote that she set the $5,000 annual number to balance the NCAA's fears about huge payments to players. Munson says that lawyers on both sides are certain to ask for a clarification.

That seems completely arbitrary. Either paying players is appropriate or paying players is inappropriate. Setting some bullshit $5,000 per year limit makes absolutely no sense. It's the intellectual equivalent of making prostitution legal, but you're only allowed two trips to the brother per month.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Can someone explain this one to me? From the ESPN article:


That seems completely arbitrary. Either paying players is appropriate or paying players is inappropriate. Setting some bullshit $5,000 per year limit makes absolutely no sense. It's the intellectual equivalent of making prostitution legal, but you're only allowed two trips to the brother per month.

I thought the $5,000 was a floor, not a cap?

 

[wizards8507]

I thought the $5,000 was a floor, not a cap?

Either way.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Can someone explain this one to me? From the ESPN article:


That seems completely arbitrary. Either paying players is appropriate or paying players is inappropriate. Setting some bullshit $5,000 per year limit makes absolutely no sense. It's the intellectual equivalent of making prostitution legal, but you're only allowed two trips to the brother per month.

The money goes into a trust fund to be paid out upon the end of the athletes' eligibility. And, yes, it's basically an arbitrary number.

EDIT: nevermind, I see that's addressed in the blurb.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Is it clear how Title IX will view these payments? On one hand, there really isn't much revenue (if any) being derived off the random female high jumper at Nebraska. So, they really don't have a commercial complaint. But, will the schools be compelled to set aside trust money for women (particularly the Olympic sports)?

 

[Black Irish]

Is it clear how Title IX will view these payments? On one hand, there really isn't much revenue (if any) being derived off the random female high jumper at Nebraska. So, they really don't have a commercial complaint. But, will the schools be compelled to set aside trust money for women (particularly the Olympic sports)?

I'm not sure how Title 9 works, but my ill-informed speculation says that it may have to do with how the pay system flows. If a school's AD is going out waving $ at players to buy their skills, I could see someone arguing that a percentage of that money has to be earmarked to shop for female athletes to keep Title 9 sports afloat. Or is it more a matter of Stud Football Recruit telling a school "I'll play for you but I want so much money and the right to shop my image and likeness around and put the revenue in my own pocket."

 

[Legacy]

Title IX

Title IX

Is it clear how Title IX will view these payments? On one hand, there really isn't much revenue (if any) being derived off the random female high jumper at Nebraska. So, they really don't have a commercial complaint. But, will the schools be compelled to set aside trust money for women (particularly the Olympic sports)?

Title IX prohibits discrimination against women in educational institutions that receive federal funds (almost every institution).

The three parts of Title IX that apply to athletics programs:
(1) effective accommodation of student interests and abilities (participation),
(2) athletic financial assistance (scholarships), and
(3) other program components (the "laundry list" of benefits to and treatment of athletes).

The "laundry list" includes equipment and supplies, scheduling of games and practice times, travel and daily per diem allowances, access to tutoring, coaching, locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities, medical and training facilities and services, publicity, recruitment of student athletes and support services.

I suspect that, if either the Power 5 conferences (and NCAA) were to cover the full cost of attendance, a good argument could be made that #2 (scholarships) and #3 (other benefits) would be violated and discriminatory. As far as demand for NIL (names, images, licenses) as in O'Bannon, you make a good point about demand for NIL on athletes outside of main sports.

An example of costs for this change in cost of attendance stipends ($5000), Ohio State has 900 "student-athletes" in 36 sports (men's and women's). Some are on only partial scholarships. But, if all were on full scholarships and if each received $5000, then Ohio State would see an increase of $4.5 million - about Urban Meyer's salary.

 

[Legacy]

Either paying players is appropriate or paying players is inappropriate. Setting some bullshit $5,000 per year limit makes absolutely no sense. It's the intellectual equivalent of making prostitution legal, but you're only allowed two trips to the brother per month.

The $5,000 floor is the alternative to opening it up to a Wild West type of situation and can be considered restrictive in a ruling that has told the NCAA that they cannot be restrictive of player's rights to their names, images and licenses (NIL).

The players may well appeal this part of the ruling. The NCAA could argue that a third string offensive lineman does not deserve as many trips to the brothel as a five star QB recruit.

Assuming the players get $5,000/year in a trust, they get this money at the end of their eligibility. I assume this would include either graduation, leaving early for the NFL, transfers to another school like a JUCO or non-FBS school, dismissal from the team, etc.

The alternative is each player (with an agent) could negotiate on their own, a union could negotiate for them or each school could have players sign a license for their NIL to the school.

 

[wizards8507]

Appeals court nixes plan to play student-athletes in Ed O'Bannon case; agrees that NCAA violates antitrust laws

 

[GATTACA!]

This stuff all bores me. Can someone please just summarize what this means in terms of NCAA16?

 

[dublinirish]

This stuff all bores me. Can someone please just summarize what this means in terms of NCAA16?

Court explains why EA Sports could bring back 'NCAA Football' at some point - SBNation.com

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The 9th Circuit Court thinks you're getting your NCAA video game back eventually. <a href="http://t.co/W5VdPQjta3">pic.twitter.com/W5VdPQjta3</a></p>— Kevin Trahan (@k_trahan) <a href="https://twitter.com/k_trahan/status/649227974194163712">September 30, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish#1]

Appeals court nixes plan to play student-athletes in Ed O'Bannon case; agrees that NCAA violates antitrust laws

With the ruling against the Northwestern players forming a union and now this, I think a lot of the "pay for play" talk will cool down.

 

[ThePiombino]

Court explains why EA Sports could bring back 'NCAA Football' at some point - SBNation.com

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The 9th Circuit Court thinks you're getting your NCAA video game back eventually. <a href="http://t.co/W5VdPQjta3">pic.twitter.com/W5VdPQjta3</a></p>— Kevin Trahan (@k_trahan) <a href="https://twitter.com/k_trahan/status/649227974194163712">September 30, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

FINALLY! A reason to get my paws on a PS4 soon.