Judge rules current athletes can join suit against NCAA

[DeerPark12]

In part, this is my beef. You can pay a S&C half a million dollars and say that it is okay because that is what he is worth based on his field and level of expertise, same with trainers, doctors etc...What is Griner worth, once in a decade, if not a lifetime type of player? How many butts does she put in the seats? How many tickets does she sell? In the same way that Butch Jones' agent can gauge the market a player could too.

11 guys are making 6.2 million per year to coach 100 football players. This is just the staff and S&C coach. Each one of those eleven should be directly responsible for getting ten players to class imo, for that kind of money. If you say a UT degree means something... shouldn't that be the goal? 40% (roughly) of the time we fail on our promise

That's all well in good, but nowhere near the fair market value of what SOME of these athletes could make if they simply said, "I will not sign over the use of my likeness to the NCAA for the rest of my life. You can have it for four years and if the NCAA or my University uses my name and or likeness after that four years, it owes me a set fee."

But that's kind of my point on what makes college sports different. You can't really quantify what a player means to school when it comes to things like ticket sales. And I think women's basketball is the perfect example here, so i'm glad you brought it up. Put a gamechanging player like Candace Parker or Griner on a college team and fans continue to buy season tickets at roughly the same rate they did before. Take that same player and put her on a WNBA team and nobody cares. People ultimately pay to see the schools and root for those players because they wear the name across the chest. When they move on, it doesn't have a large impact on the school's bottom line because fans line up to cheer for the next generation. Monica Abbott was a great pitcher at UT, but the Lady Vol softball team still sells out their stadium, as they did 8 times last season, even though she moved on six years ago.

Same goes for the Manziel example. Texas A&M sold out games before him, and they will sell out games with him next year and will most likely continue to do so once they leave.

The relationship isn't parasitic, either. These players that get the affection of home fans parlay that to professional careers they never would have attained without the resources the school provided. Even less-successful athletes are able to use the fact that they were athletes at a school to get into jobs in the business world that they wouldn't have been in on as a regular student.

Are you aware that the five-year graduation rate for athletes, "failure rate" as you put it, is still higher than the five-year rate for non-athletes? We're doing something right there.

As to your last point, that's certainly fair, but denying the ability to use future rights creates more problems than it solves. To even do something as simple as showing a classic game on television, you would have to get the permission of every single player on every single team, then figure out how many pennies they would get every time the game airs. Players are free to license their name on university-related items once they graduate as it is. Signing over rights doesn't deny them that ability.

 

[vol66]

But that's kind of my point on what makes college sports different. You can't really quantify what a player means to school when it comes to things like ticket sales. And I think women's basketball is the perfect example here, so i'm glad you brought it up. Put a gamechanging player like Candace Parker or Griner on a college team and fans continue to buy season tickets at roughly the same rate they did before. Take that same player and put her on a WNBA team and nobody cares. People ultimately pay to see the schools and root for those players because they wear the name across the chest. When they move on, it doesn't have a large impact on the school's bottom line because fans line up to cheer for the next generation. Monica Abbott was a great pitcher at UT, but the Lady Vol softball team still sells out their stadium, as they did 8 times last season, even though she moved on six years ago.

Same goes for the Manziel example. Texas A&M sold out games before him, and they will sell out games with him next year and will most likely continue to do so once they leave.

The relationship isn't parasitic, either. These players that get the affection of home fans parlay that to professional careers they never would have attained without the resources the school provided. Even less-successful athletes are able to use the fact that they were athletes at a school to get into jobs in the business world that they wouldn't have been in on as a regular student.

Are you aware that the five-year graduation rate for athletes, "failure rate" as you put it, is still higher than the five-year rate for non-athletes? We're doing something right there.

As to your last point, that's certainly fair, but denying the ability to use future rights creates more problems than it solves. To even do something as simple as showing a classic game on television, you would have to get the permission of every single player on every single team, then figure out how many pennies they would get every time the game airs. Players are free to license their name on university-related items once they graduate as it is. Signing over rights doesn't deny them that ability.

I get that the school does what the school does provided the school can field competitive teams.

You seem to be saying, I'm sure you'll correct me, teams sell out because that many folks love the name on the jersey. Which name? The University name or the player's name. I know why I bought a Justin Hunter jersey over a Tyler Bray one for my 5 year old. I hope Justin gets some residuals from my choice, lol. How many games sell out because Monica Abbott is pitching that day? Because she is likely to play? You're talking about the school's bottom line and saying that is more important than the players bottom line which is training room table scraps in comparison. Even in softball and basketball. I watch basketball, but I'm really watching Jarnell Stokes. Look at that kid, the smile. If he busts out at UT he could parlay that into something, even if he doesn't make it in the NBA, he could be a star in Knoxville for a long time. Yet, you, the schools, the NCAA begrudge him that because Texas might offer him more on the front end.

 

[DeerPark12]

I get that the school does what the school does provided the school can field competitive teams.

You seem to be saying, I'm sure you'll correct me, teams sell out because that many folks love the name on the jersey. Which name? The University name or the player's name. I know why I bought a Justin Hunter jersey over a Tyler Bray one for my 5 year old. I hope Justin gets some residuals from my choice, lol. How many games sell out because Monica Abbott is pitching that day? Because she is likely to play? You're talking about the school's bottom line and saying that is more important than the players bottom line which is training room table scraps in comparison. Even in softball and basketball. I watch basketball, but I'm really watching Jarnell Stokes. Look at that kid, the smile. If he busts out at UT he could parlay that into something, even if he doesn't make it in the NBA, he could be a star in Knoxville for a long time. Yet, you, the schools, the NCAA begrudge him that because Texas might offer him more on the front end.

Certainly every fan is different, but I believe, and data seems to suggest, that what separates college sports from professional sports is the connection that fans have to a school, where the cast of athletes changes constantly, but the level of fan support remains relatively constant. Attendance ebbs and flows based on overall team success, but rarely do college teams see one player move the meter significantly.

The other issue is, again, quantifying who exactly it is that would be driving a surge. You come to see Jarnell Stokes, while maybe I come to see Jordan McRae or the hometown hero Skylar McBee. Would either of us still buy our season tickets if it was someone else wearing that jersey? I would argue that I would. I guess I argue that because I do. I don't even live in Knoxville anymore but I maintained my football and men's and women's basketball tickets because I love the program and drive in whenever I can. Maybe your experience is different, I don't know.

I wouldn't have a problem with athletes having a cut of jersey sales with their number on them put in a trust to be claimed after graduation.

 

[vol66]

As to your last point, that's certainly fair, but denying the ability to use future rights creates more problems than it solves. To even do something as simple as showing a classic game on television, you would have to get the permission of every single player on every single team, then figure out how many pennies they would get every time the game airs. Players are free to license their name on university-related items once they graduate as it is. Signing over rights doesn't deny them that ability.

I'd like to know more about the bolded.

As for the rest...I'm in the music industry where figuring out Bruce Springsteen royalties and some band you've never heard of is on the same table. It could be done in college sports but I don't think the players are there yet. Once the players decide, or their parents decide that, "Ya know...J. Clowney's best interest would be to go ahead, hire an agent, be fronted some money and NOT play his junior or senior season because the risk of injury and dropping in the NFL draft, is greater than the reward of the promised degree. Let's quit while we are ahead as a freakin' freak of a sophomore".

Once he's there, in large part because historically million dollar coaches and the "support system" have failed not on the field but in the classroom, he'll stop listening to handlers and realize his worth.

He could get paid every time ESPN plays the Hit. A play that happened in college, though I'm sure Espn might not air it over and over if it cost them something.

 

[vol66]

Certainly every fan is different, but I believe, and data seems to suggest, that what separates college sports from professional sports is the connection that fans have to a school, where the cast of athletes changes constantly, but the level of fan support remains relatively constant. Attendance ebbs and flows based on overall team success, but rarely do college teams see one player move the meter significantly.

The other issue is, again, quantifying who exactly it is that would be driving a surge. You come to see Jarnell Stokes, while maybe I come to see Jordan McRae or the hometown hero Skylar McBee. Would either of us still buy our season tickets if it was someone else wearing that jersey? I would argue that I would. I guess I argue that because I do. I don't even live in Knoxville anymore but I maintained my football and men's and women's basketball tickets because I love the program and drive in whenever I can. Maybe your experience is different, I don't know.

I wouldn't have a problem with athletes having a cut of jersey sales with their number on them put in a trust to be claimed after graduation.

I consider your final statement a great step, makes sense.

Skyler Mc3 doing a mickey d commercial a week after the shot that beat Kansas, Lovin' It.

I have a great respect for you as a poster here. All I'm trying to do/say is point out the problems that seem to be, and push for some sort of change because I believe it's an old model and the whole thing works poorly.

Not just sports, the education model itself, testing...

But mostly, the money spurred on by ESPN and the like, it's nuts. How many bowls would not exsist if it was not for ESPN, half?

 

[Voluble2]

Basically, the NCAA has a government subsidized monopoly on farm league football. And they abuse that monopoly in a variety of ways... not just in the ways mentioned in the lawsuit. That is the long and the short of it. If a guy is not college material but has the ability to be a great football player he is denied that opportunity because there is an arbitrary linkage enforced between athletics and academics. This makes no more sense than setting up a requirement that anyone wishing to be an engineer or lawyer needs to be able to bench 500 lbs or run a 4.4 forty. If that were the only (or main) path to enter those professions then we would miss out on a lot of really excellent lawyers and engineers for no real reason and we would be denying people the opportunities they have earned through their relevant skills. But this is EXACTLY what we do with athletes.

The athletic departments and coaches get rich off the labor of these kids who have no other options if they want to pursue a career in football and very few options in a variety of other sports. The reason these options do not exist is due to college athletics being subsidized to the point that competition is not viable. No private entity can step in and raise the local sales tax so that something like Thompson Boling Arena can be built, nor could they get away with being so parsimonious in rewarding the athletes so as to allow money to accumulate to build such things in the face of government subsidized competition.

The only plantations that still exist are all on college campuses these days. Kids are bought and sold. They are weighed and measured like livestock. They are given rules to follow by their masters that have nothing to do with their own wants, desires or goals and they are made to labor for free while someone else enjoys the fruits of those labors... right down to even using their names and likenesses in perpetuity.

You can spin it however you like but it is at best a form of indentured servitude that would not exist were teams forced to compete for the services of these athletes by paying them what they are worth on the open market. What we have now is a completely artificial system that only exists due to the government using its monopoly on force to create it. It has no legitimacy of its own and no inherent virtue established through competition in the market place or through the interactions of free people, each acting in their own interests as they see fit. Instead, we have a few elitists at the top who make rules that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

I love to watch college sports as much as anyone but I know it is completely corrupt and should not exist. Something more rational and fairer would be in place were it to go away tomorrow. Hell, as it is now, the most moral cogs in the whole industry are the boosters who funnel cash to the players. How screwed up must a system be when the only guys who reward the kids for their efforts by paying them for their services are considered the bad guys? In the eyes of the elitists who run these universities you absolutely can't have the kids start thinking their labor is worth anything... where would that end?

And it is not just about greed. It is about control. It is not enough that the university takes all of the profit. They won't even let boosters and fans give money directly to the kids! They are dead set against anyone profiting but the universities even if it would not hurt their bottom line to allow it. It doesn't take a dollar out of their pockets for a fan to give to an athlete but it does change the balance of power and put the lie to the fiction that they are acting in the athlete's best interest. That is why paying players is the biggest sin according to the bodies that regulate college sports.

It simply would not do for someone to profit from their labor, even when they are putting their lives and health on the line for our amusement.

 

[vol66]

“She’s brought a lot more spectators to the game just with everything she’s done – the dunks and the blocks,” Notre Dame forward Devereaux Peters said. “She’s completely changed women’s basketball.

“I think she makes the game more fun. [Average fans] are looking for those spectacular plays, and a lot of times women’s basketball is about fundamentals whereas men’s basketball is all about the dunks and the huge blocks and the athletic plays. I think she brings a lot more of that to the game, and she brings a lot more than normal spectators to our game.”
Brittney Griner's impact is felt on and off the women's basketball court - College Women's Basketball - Rivals.com

 

[DeerPark12]

I'd like to know more about the bolded.

As for the rest...I'm in the music industry where figuring out Bruce Springsteen royalties and some band you've never heard of is on the same table. It could be done in college sports but I don't think the players are there yet. Once the players decide, or their parents decide that, "Ya know...J. Clowney's best interest would be to go ahead, hire an agent, be fronted some money and NOT play his junior or senior season because the risk of injury and dropping in the NFL draft, is greater than the reward of the promised degree. Let's quit while we are ahead as a freakin' freak of a sophomore".

Once he's there, in large part because historically million dollar coaches and the "support system" have failed not on the field but in the classroom, he'll stop listening to handlers and realize his worth.

He could get paid every time ESPN plays the Hit. A play that happened in college, though I'm sure Espn might not air it over and over if it cost them something.

Athletes still own their likeness to a certain extent, even under the current system. If, after eligibility is expired, they want to license their name to be used on a jersey with their name on it, they're free to do so, as long as the school also licenses it. After he graduated, Eric Berry (through his deal with adidas) had his name on a line of #14 adidas UT jerseys and t-shirts. They did a similar deal with Peyton Manning when adidas bought Reebok and inherited his contract. Nike did the same with Tebow at Florida and has with plenty of other players.

On the other side of it, once a player leaves, schools can use a player's photo, but only in the same ways they did while the athlete was in school. They can't sell it to corporate partners for implied endorsements or anything like that.

If the NFL doesn't do away with the three year rule (which I think they should), then you'll see a player like Clowney make the jump and train for a year after having a big first two years. There are strong rumors out of Columbia that he's considering that right now.

I consider your final statement a great step, makes sense.

Skyler Mc3 doing a mickey d commercial a week after the shot that beat Kansas, Lovin' It.

I have a great respect for you as a poster here. All I'm trying to do/say is point out the problems that seem to be, and push for some sort of change because I believe it's an old model and the whole thing works poorly.

Not just sports, the education model itself, testing...

But mostly, the money spurred on by ESPN and the like, it's nuts. How many bowls would not exsist if it was not for ESPN, half?

I appreciate that we could have a discussion about the topic instead of the insult-filled argument someone else tried to direct at me a few pages back.

As for the bowls, ESPN actually owns and puts on many of them. Most of those lose money on the face, but ESPN makes it back in ad revenue. The majority of the bowl system exists to fill programming hours on ESPN. I can see where it could be argued that it's exploitative on the athletes, but I actually think the bowl system is the one area that directly benefits athletes. The bowls give them $600 in gifts, the school another $600 and then the players get mileage money to travel to and from the bowl site. A bowl game is quite the financial boom for football players, gift-wise.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The players deserve there share of what they generate. What they should do is refuse to take a scholarship from the University. Only use there own money or state and federal programs to go to school. Then sue for there compensation, no way to rule but for the athletes that generate if they did that.

The players deserve whatever they sign on for in their contract, which is an expensive education, room and board, along with other niceties that they get from being a college athlete. If they don't want to participate in the system, no one is holding a gun to their heads.

I would have been ecstatic for the opportunity when I graduated college. I would be ecstatic for any of my children to be given the opportunity.

For this group of former NCAA athletes to go through with what they signed up for, and then sue to change the terms afterward... That's what's really underhanded.

(So, we're at least half in agreement.)

 

[vol66]

Athletes still own their likeness to a certain extent, even under the current system. If, after eligibility is expired, they want to license their name to be used on a jersey with their name on it, they're free to do so, as long as the school also licenses it. After he graduated, Eric Berry (through his deal with adidas) had his name on a line of #14 adidas UT jerseys and t-shirts. They did a similar deal with Peyton Manning when adidas bought Reebok and inherited his contract. Nike did the same with Tebow at Florida and has with plenty of other players.

I wondered how that worked. Thanks for the info.

On the other side of it, once a player leaves, schools can use a player's photo, but only in the same ways they did while the athlete was in school. They can't sell it to corporate partners for implied endorsements or anything like that.

This must be at the core of the lawsuit the NCAA is facing now.

If the NFL doesn't do away with the three year rule (which I think they should), then you'll see a player like Clowney make the jump and train for a year after having a big first two years. There are strong rumors out of Columbia that he's considering that right now.

I agree that the three year rule should just go away. Bryce Brown simply didn't fit into the current system, not that I agree with how he and his family handled the situation. If I'm being honest, I was mad that kid walked away at first. The guy that promised him this or that left after one year to take his "dream job" and there's no penalty because USC is going to pay the "penalty". How can I hold it against Brown, he should be allowed to take his services to the NFL, pursue his dream job like these one and done coaches do. Unfortanately, if he does hire an agent to explore his options, there's no going back, his eligibility is gone.


I appreciate that we could have a discussion about the topic instead of the insult-filled argument someone else tried to direct at me a few pages back.

Likewise DP I appreciate what you bring to the board and the time you're willing to put into your posts. Civility is a good thing imo.

As for the bowls, ESPN actually owns and puts on many of them. Most of those lose money on the face, but ESPN makes it back in ad revenue. The majority of the bowl system exists to fill programming hours on ESPN. I can see where it could be argued that it's exploitative on the athletes, but I actually think the bowl system is the one area that directly benefits athletes. The bowls give them $600 in gifts, the school another $600 and then the players get mileage money to travel to and from the bowl site. A bowl game is quite the financial boom for football players, gift-wise.

I think I'll pass on getting into a lengthy debate about the bowl system, but particularly on the issue of what the players get...Here the NCAA and the schools let the players receive an improper benefit, at least technically. I'm sure the players like the gifts, who wouldn't?

 

[joevol320]

And here's to hoping they don't.........dumpster fire waiting to happen imo.

that's what i worry about. you guys think bama cheats now?

wait until players get an "allowence" bamer will be putting money in every recruit and player's hands.