- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NCAA athletes can pursue television money, judge rules
Posted on 1/30/13 at 8:31 am
Posted on 1/30/13 at 8:31 am
Don't know if this has been posted. I did a brief search and I didn't see that it has been discussed.
LINK
quote:
A California judge ruled Tuesday that the NCAA cannot prevent football and men’s basketball players from legally pursuing a portion of live broadcast revenues, reports ESPN.com
LINK
This post was edited on 1/30/13 at 8:32 am
Posted on 1/30/13 at 8:33 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
I can see both sides of this argument.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 8:36 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
This is going to get ugly.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 8:37 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
slowly but surely, football is changing
all the money involved, more people wanting pieces of it, lawsuits, safety, etc
it's a huge mess
all the money involved, more people wanting pieces of it, lawsuits, safety, etc
it's a huge mess
Posted on 1/30/13 at 8:38 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
I did see this week that the NCAA denied Akron's request to put players twitter handles on the back of their jersey. Wonder if they will sue???
Posted on 1/30/13 at 8:51 am to threeputt
Would be the beginning of the end of collegiate athletics as we know it.
It would become minor leagues in all sports and college sports would become nothing more than intramurals.
It would become minor leagues in all sports and college sports would become nothing more than intramurals.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 8:51 am to ohiovol
quote:
This is going to get ugly.
Big time.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 11:52 am to CocomoLSU
So, who do y'all think will come out on top with this one?
Posted on 1/30/13 at 12:23 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
sounds like the title of that article is expansive and generous to the plaintiffs
the judge ruled that the suit's claims about pursuing tv money won't be thrown out, as best i can tell. i don't think that it actually ruled on the issue of revenue or damages one way or another
yeah sounds like the NCAA filed a motion to strike certain parts of the plaintiffs' claims, and the judge denied the motion. that's all. the class hasn't even been certified yet
quote:
Judge Claudia Wilken issued her ruling Tuesday, rejecting the NCAA's motion that players in the antitrust suit led by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon should be precluded from advancing their lawsuit on procedural grounds.
the judge ruled that the suit's claims about pursuing tv money won't be thrown out, as best i can tell. i don't think that it actually ruled on the issue of revenue or damages one way or another
quote:
"Although our motion to strike was denied, the judge has signaled skepticism on plaintiff's class-certification motion and recognized the plaintiffs' radical change in their theory of the case," Remy said. "This is a step in the right direction toward allowing the NCAA to further demonstrate why this case is wrong on the law and that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this case satisfies the criteria for class litigation."
yeah sounds like the NCAA filed a motion to strike certain parts of the plaintiffs' claims, and the judge denied the motion. that's all. the class hasn't even been certified yet
Posted on 1/30/13 at 1:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
I played football in college and this is a terrible idea.
The last thing college sports need are tensions flaring in the locker rooms because someone is jealous that another player is getting paid more than they are.
And it will only be a matter of time before the women's water polo team comes forward and demands to file a lawsuit on the grounds of "unfair treatment".
The last thing college sports need are tensions flaring in the locker rooms because someone is jealous that another player is getting paid more than they are.
And it will only be a matter of time before the women's water polo team comes forward and demands to file a lawsuit on the grounds of "unfair treatment".
Posted on 1/30/13 at 2:11 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
I already posted this earlier. arse.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 2:14 pm to accnodefense
quote:
And it will only be a matter of time before the women's water polo team comes forward and demands to file a lawsuit on the grounds of "unfair treatment".
the brilliance of third party marketing is that it eliminates these worries
Title 9 makes paying athletes all but impossible, but allowing players to get paid for endorsing goods gets around this
Posted on 1/30/13 at 2:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the brilliance of third party marketing is that it eliminates these worries
Title 9 makes paying athletes all but impossible, but allowing players to get paid for endorsing goods gets around this
Exactly. Patrick Hruby writes for the Atlantic, Sports on Earth and some other sites. He is one of the only people who has offered a semi-legitimate way for players to get paid.
The schools cannot pay players because of Title IX. It is just not possible. ALso, the logistical concerns are huge. How would payment amounts be determined? Everyone gets amount X? Players sign 4-year contracts? It's a huge shitstorm, even if Title IX is not included.
His suggestion is just allow players to get endorsements. I don't like the idea, but it is at least a bit more feasible than anything else.
This would eliminate the argument that everyone playing sports should get compensation, as no car dealer or local restaurant would shell out money for a female laxer or male volleyball player. Or for that matter, a back-up offensive tackle.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 3:16 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
A California judge ruled Tuesday that the NCAA cannot prevent football and men’s basketball players from legally pursuing a portion of live broadcast revenues, reports ESPN.com
That sentence is misleading. The case is about royalties based off a player's likeness used in a video game. It has nothing to do with television money.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 3:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the judge ruled that the suit's claims about pursuing tv money won't be thrown out, as best i can tell. i don't think that it actually ruled on the issue of revenue or damages one way or another
Yeah, he merely dismissed the NCAA's challenge to the suit on procedural grounds. Nobody has won or lost; it just means the case can now go on.
Posted on 1/31/13 at 4:14 am to Keys Open Doors
How is it feasible to get endorsement money? Who get's the deals? Only the QB's and RB's? (Usually the case in the Pros) What if a big time alumnus owns a car dealership,business or whatever and he signs up all the his big time players or promises future recruits "endorsement" deals.
Its a bad idea across the board to open this can of worms.
Its a bad idea across the board to open this can of worms.
Posted on 1/31/13 at 8:20 am to bobbyray21
Seems like a player when signing a scholly could also sign away 100% of all royalties from tv/film/audio over to school/conference/NCAA for right to play.
I think it's a paperwork issue.
I think it's a paperwork issue.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News