[Yahoo Sports] Opening up the NCAA financial books

Well, that hasn't actually happened yet. You can't can't get bad karma for things you haven't done.

 

Lets Lazarus this thread:



The O'Bannon case got underway yesterday, here's the story-stream:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/3/18/4121364/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit

Looks like the needle is slightly favoring O'Bannon and the plaintiffs after day 1, as the NCAA makes weak arguments.

---

Personally, I prefer schools pay the players, get rid of athletic scholarships (scholarships should be for scholars) and avoid the whole "student athlete" charade altogether.

Alternatively, many of these kids only have up to 4 years of local celebrity to capitalize on and will fade into the background after graduation. The wrestling champ, the star women's basketball player, the soccer star - this is it for them. Let them trade their fleeting value for some cash while they have the chance.

---

Whatever your opinion, it's popcorn time.

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4XEq6XYtMVU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Let athletes make money off of their likeliness. Make it so that in order to do this, the athletes and the other company/entity must go through the NCAA to get approval. This way boosters who secretly prop up their program buy paying players are still not allowed.

 

I agree with O'Bannon's position. If actors can receive royalty checks for films and sitcoms made 20 years ago when they are aired again, I see no reason why these athletes shouldn't have access to similar compensation arrangements after they've left the NCAA. ESPECIALLY really memorable and replayed moments like they reference.

 

Easy: because actors aren't getting their way paid through the show. They earned being actors by either practicing before becoming professionals, going to schools, and earning their spots. They're not acting for free nor are they getting a free education while they act in the show.

Are you saying that they should get paid when a TV station shows an old game where they participated?!?!? That's hilarious... NO. :grin:


Off to the D&D?

 

Certainly it is not to the extent of athletics, but there are acting/singing, etc. scholarships for actors/performers.

 

The NCAA made a mistake and got greedy with video games. They should have just refrained but now they don't have a leg to stand on. EA is even asking for permission from tattoo artists to allow their tattoos on players for Madden. You have to cover your bases.

 

Juliard (top arts school) gives scholarships: http://www.juilliard.edu/apply-audition/financial-aid-scholarships/juilliard-scholarships?destination=node/13949

AND, the student doesn't lose the scholarship if he lands a gig. The students financial needs may change for the next year (when the scholarship has to be renewed), but the NCAA won't prohibit him or her from participating in acting events.

Maybe, residuals are standard practice in entertainment. They should be negotiated, or at least addressed, for schools, coaches, players, bowls, and whoever was involved in creating the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_(entertainment_industry)

 

As much as I think OBannon and the Northwestern football players are just tools for high priced lawyers looking for their next class action suit, I happen to agree in this instance. Unless the scholarship specifically stated that their likeness and image could be used without their consent, it's not right for the NCAA to have profited from this.

 

I still like my idea the best. Pool all revenue into a fund and dispense it equally among all schools, perhaps with an emphasis on academics, not athletics. Everyone is working so hard so someone can profit. "Student-athletes" is a term so make it "school-athletics", - all of it not for profit. Nobody gets rich. Suck it. It's the easiest option that is fair.

Profiteers run this charade as if the kids are getting some fair value and all is right with the world. Cut the BS, put your nuts on the dresser and really give everyone a fair shake. And play and maintain it for the oooooh so important, "love of the game".

 

I am completely against the athletes on this one. So what if some of them practice over 60 hours a week, that's like having a full time job. And so what if the NCAA makes mountains upon mountains of money on them, and if they get a career ending injury during their time there not only can they lose their scholarship but they won't have a claim to a dime of the money. So what if athletes are discouraged from pursuing STEM career based majors just because they might require more time and ultimately as a society we need more STEM majors. So what. Wait, what was I arguing for or against again? Was it communism?...

 

a couple points:

1. Most college athletics programs don't make money

2. A college education is incredibly valuable and is most certainly compensation

 

This suffers from the misconception that all college majors are the same. The last thing we need is another communications major. Different athletic programs allow for different majors. So far I've gone to two schools driven by athletics (The University of Arizona for my BS and University of Oregon for my PhD). A universal theme amongst football and basketball players in both schools is that their majors are dictated by the athletics department, and most of the time it is something along the lines of Family and Consumer Sciences, Communications, or Undecided major track (which is ultimately for the kids who do not end up getting a degree). For every Andrew Luck there are 50 Willie Tuitamas. There are success stories of kids using their sports edge to get amazing careers, but I would wager there are more students who have had career ending injuries and then a removal of funding leaving them to be nothing more than a french fry maker at McD's.

 

Day two: http://college-football.si.com/2014/06/10/obannon-v-ncaa-day-two-roger-noll/

Not all the details are in there, but it's not bad.

Highlights:

Noll's sarcastic response was something to the effect of how he also doubts the TV vans would show up to an empty stadium. The sarcasm is strong with this one.

some other recaps:

• http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000357215/article/what-we-learned-from-day-2-of-obannon-vs-ncaa-trial
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/06/10/ncaa-antitrust-lawsuit-ed-obannon-trial-day-2/10277109/
• http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/06/economist_roger_noll_testimony.html

 

My point is that an education is valuable. If the student is too big of a moron to choose a useful major, then that's his right. He squandered his compensation.

 

Maybe in some types of entertainment, but not. For example, NFL, NBA, and MLB players don't get royalties everytime an old game is broadcast on TV or everytime highlights are shown.

 

What if the practice time required for the scholarship prevents you from pursuing the major?