NCAA loses O'Bannon Case

[burmafrd]

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/08/08/ncaa-loses-obannon-antitrust-case


athletes will now get paid. Just a matter of how much. And also the jersey and such sales will now have to include the player.

This was inevitable but at the same time I think those that started this are probably NOT going to like where it all ends up in 5-10 years.

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, god forbid we have a system that's fair to the athletes.

 

[burmafrd]

Yeah, god forbid we have a system that's fair to the athletes.

as usual some here are not looking at it from the point of view of unintended consequences. If you think that its all about the athletes and being fair then frankly you are a wrong.

 

[peplaw06]

What's it all about then? School presidents, regents, coaches lining their pockets and the schools upgrading their facilities and making billions of dollars while the athletes get an "education." Sounds so much better.

 

[joseephuss]

This is going to lead to some changes. Some good changes, some bad changes and just some changes. The word "fair" isn't going to matter. It will be difficult to be fair to all players and all sports. The compensation( in addition to the "education") that gets distributed may not be equitable. Football and basketball players are going to get more than participants in non-revenue sports. Not all sports generate billions of dollars. Will those sports go away as more money is allocated to the revenue making sports? I think it is possible. The distribution of payments will also be different among football players. As we see in the NFL not every position commands the same amount of salary. Player A and Player B may work out equally hard for their program, but one is going to have more success, sell more jerseys and be in position to gain more compensation.

The system is long overdue for some changes. NCAA football is far different now and than in the past. These changes can have some dramatic results. Maybe there is a formation of a superleague. Maybe the big schools cut some programs such as rugby, swimming or women's sports. Some changes will be easily accepted, others won't. I think this news is big for all future players and some necessary changes are needed. How far it goes, who knows?

 

[burmafrd]

Title IX is the poster child for that. A lot of fine mens sports are basically dead now because of it. Men's wrestling is just hanging on; mens gymnastics is just about dead. Other sports pretty much are. In return we have a lot of women's sports that absolutely no one cares about and many colleges have trouble even getting enough people to fill their teams.

The idea was good; but sadly like so many others it got perverted and twisted and now is nowhere near what was intended.

This is going to be the same. Intentions were good and certainly changes are desperately needed. But as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for you might get it.

What the Judge should have added was to tell the NCAA to throw out its current rulebook and start from scratch. Right now its such a moronic collection of crap its about useless.

 

[peplaw06]

The word "fair" isn't going to matter. It will be difficult to be fair to all players and all sports. The compensation( in addition to the "education") that gets distributed may not be equitable. Football and basketball players are going to get more than participants in non-revenue sports. Not all sports generate billions of dollars.

Fair doesn't mean equal...

And paying players for their talents and skills is certainly more fair than not paying them. Even if some athletes don't make as much as others, being compensated is more fair than not.

I'm comparing each athlete before this ruling to themselves under a revamped system when saying it should be fair. Not one player to another player under a (to this point) hypothetical system.

 

[peplaw06]

Title IX is the poster child for that. A lot of fine mens sports are basically dead now because of it. Men's wrestling is just hanging on; mens gymnastics is just about dead. Other sports pretty much are. In return we have a lot of women's sports that absolutely no one cares about and many colleges have trouble even getting enough people to fill their teams.

The idea was good; but sadly like so many others it got perverted and twisted and now is nowhere near what was intended.

This is going to be the same. Intentions were good and certainly changes are desperately needed. But as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for you might get it.

You can't let perfect be the enemy of better.

What the Judge should have added was to tell the NCAA to throw out its current rulebook and start from scratch. Right now its such a moronic collection of crap its about useless.

Doubtful the judge had the authority to do that. Judges can only address issues that are properly before the court.

 

[Hoofbite]

They've already canned the NCAA franchise.

Quite an awesome result for fans of video games, and that series in particular.

 

[burmafrd]

You can't let perfect be the enemy of better.


and how sure are we that this will turn out 'better'?

Doubtful the judge had the authority to do that. Judges can only address issues that are properly before the court.

Does not seem to stop a lot of judges from doing just that.

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

They've already canned the NCAA franchise.

Quite an awesome result for fans of video games, and that series in particular.

I'm not a game player anymore, but i've heard rumblings that the power 5 conferences may bring back the series when the dust settles and marketing rights for players are agreed upon.... but who knows. The budget for those games may not justify such a comeback.

 

[peplaw06]

Does not seem to stop a lot of judges from doing just that.

Really? Got any stories to back you up on that, or are you just talking out of your *** as usual?

 

[burmafrd]

Really? Got any stories to back you up on that, or are you just talking out of your *** as usual?

well if you are that uninformed why don't you check out the California 9th Federal Appeals courts and the number of times the Supreme Court has all but called them hacks.
Over reaching, etc. Many other examples are easily found but I doubt you have the ability to find them...

But then again I expect very little from you.

 

[peplaw06]

well if you are that uninformed why don't you check out the California 9th Federal Appeals courts and the number of times the Supreme Court has all but called them hacks.
Over reaching, etc. Many other examples are easily found but I doubt you have the ability to find them...

But then again I expect very little from you.

So... no then?

Overreaching, etc.? That tells me nothing. You may not agree with every court's opinions or rulings, but if a court doesn't have jurisdiction to enter a ruling, then they don't.

 

[casmith07]

So... no then?

Overreaching, etc.? That tells me nothing. You may not agree with every court's opinions or rulings, but if a court doesn't have jurisdiction to enter a ruling, then they don't.

Oh, come on, pep. Judicial overreach and legislation from the bench are real problems. Whether burm is right in his assertion or not remains to be seen but to simply dismiss it as "lack of jurisdiction" is a cop out.

 

[peplaw06]

Oh, come on, pep. Judicial overreach and legislation from the bench are real problems. Whether burm is right in his assertion or not remains to be seen but to simply dismiss it as "lack of jurisdiction" is a cop out.

I'm not talking about either of those really.......

I'm talking about subject matter jurisdiction. He doesn't understand why in a civil case against the NCAA where athletes are looking to be paid for the use of their likeness a judge can't just on their own say, "You know what NCAA, your entire rulebook needs to be thrown out," and make an order requiring a rewriting of NCAA bylaws or some ****.

And I'm kinda surprised you latched onto his use of an irrelevant generic buzzword like judicial overreach, and added in the legislation from the bench catch phrase. They literally have nothing to do with this case.

 

[burmafrd]

I'm not talking about either of those really.......

I'm talking about subject matter jurisdiction. He doesn't understand why in a civil case against the NCAA where athletes are looking to be paid for the use of their likeness a judge can't just on their own say, "You know what NCAA, your entire rulebook needs to be thrown out," and make an order requiring a rewriting of NCAA bylaws or some ****.

And I'm kinda surprised you latched onto his use of an irrelevant generic buzzword like judicial overreach, and added in the legislation from the bench catch phrase. They literally have nothing to do with this case.

and you are absolutely blind to reality. I pointed out exactly where you could go to find examples and as usual once you knew you had gotten owned you ducked and covered.

 

[casmith07]

I'm not talking about either of those really.......

I'm talking about subject matter jurisdiction. He doesn't understand why in a civil case against the NCAA where athletes are looking to be paid for the use of their likeness a judge can't just on their own say, "You know what NCAA, your entire rulebook needs to be thrown out," and make an order requiring a rewriting of NCAA bylaws or some ****.

And I'm kinda surprised you latched onto his use of an irrelevant generic buzzword like judicial overreach, and added in the legislation from the bench catch phrase. They literally have nothing to do with this case.

That's all I gathered from burm's post.

I agree 100% with your subject matter jurisdiction assertion using that example. That's fundamental.

You and I both know that courts do overreach, though. One need only look to our very own S.Ct. to see the basics of overreach on display. That being said, it didn't happen here, and for @burmafrd, pep is correct in that it cannot and would not happen in a case such as this. Overreach is usually "reserved" for appellate level courts where judicial opinions are wrote as an interpretation of the law -- trial courts invariably try to play it as conservative as possible when issuing rulings. Judges don't like being overturned.

 

[peplaw06]

and you are absolutely blind to reality. I pointed out exactly where you could go to find examples and as usual once you knew you had gotten owned you ducked and covered.

Please... you have zero clue here.

And telling me to go find something to support your argument is the exact opposite of "owning." I'm not the one who "ducked and covered."

 

[peplaw06]

That's all I gathered from burm's post.

Exactly. Burm hasn't posted anything of substance in this thread, he's just throwing out wild accusations with no specifics. When asked for them, he reverts to buzzwords that have nothing to do with the topic.

But that's par for the course for him.

I agree 100% with your subject matter jurisdiction assertion using that example. That's fundamental.

You and I both know that courts do overreach, though. One need only look to our very own S.Ct. to see the basics of overreach on display. That being said, it didn't happen here, and for @burmafrd, pep is correct in that it cannot and would not happen in a case such as this. Overreach is usually "reserved" for appellate level courts where judicial opinions are wrote as an interpretation of the law -- trial courts invariably try to play it as conservative as possible when issuing rulings. Judges don't like being overturned.

Sure appellate courts have been guilty of judicial activism... Still has nothing to do with this discussion.