Fight on!

Of course the NCAA will appeal the O’Bannon ruling, bless its heart.

About these ads

23 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

23 responses to “Fight on!

  1. reipar

    I am confused. Were they not suppose to appeal?

    • Hardly. But I doubt they’ve got any strategy about it right now more than “we shouldn’t lose”.

      If you want to get a better flavor for this, do a search on “O’Bannon” in the archives here. The number of miscalculations the NCAA has made in this case is astounding.

      • Scorpio Jones, III

        So you think the NCAA just does not believe it can be wrong about any of this?

        At several points in all this I actually sorta, kinda felt sorry for Remy who, cannot be as dumb as his public responses seem to be, but apparently has a delusional client.

        Does it not appear the leadership of the NCAA has no idea what it is doing to the games that pay its bills. This seems very strange to me.

        In fact the NCAA response to all the pressure it is getting from any number of sources just seems to me to be incomprehensibly dumb.

        • It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that there’s a tactical purpose behind the appeal, I suppose.

          But given how invested the NCAA is in its amateurism protocol, it’s hard to see how this is about anything else. The amusing thing will be to hear the rationale behind lobbying Congress for an antitrust exemption – after all, if the NCAA is in the right, why would it need an exemption in the first place?

          • Scorpio Jones, III

            Yep that’s the question. I guess since you do this lawyering stuff for a living most of the time, all this is pretty interesting.

            To me its just frightening. I do love me some college football, pretty much the way it is played now. The way things look there may be a very good market for DVD’s of games from say….the last ten years or so.

            • Cojones

              Yep. I plead “I Qlue-less” in being able to see how the compensatin’ is pulled off and keeping CFB as we know it. Might as well get them DVDs now because they may go the way of the Dino-sawer

          • AusDawg85

            You can’t run to Congress until you’ve exhausted the judicial process and proved the courts are full of wussified, liberal, college football hating Yankees. It’s right there in the Constitution.

            • Cojones

              Right. It was in a little-known addendum on the edge of the page.

              I love it when we go all stirrin’ and patriotic!

      • Right and? So they were clueless, are clueless, and will be clueless. So they should not appeal? I do not get your point? Did you think either side that lost would not appeal?

  2. 69Dawg

    Iceberg, what iceberg, move those chairs over here. Oh heck what was that???

  3. Lrgk9

    Trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

    And the Band Played On…

  4. Ryan

    Given their winning percentage in the past they’d be silly not to appeal:

    Historically, the NCAA fares better in the appellate system. According to a study released last month by Illinois professor Michael LeRoy, student-athletes suing the NCAA won 49 percent of the initial cases but the NCAA won 71 percent of the appeals in both the second and third rounds.

    • How many of those were antitrust cases?

      • Dawgaholic

        Not sure why no one is pointing out that the decision is illogical and a win of sorts for the NCAA. It makes no sense to say that you can’t limit compensation but that you can limit it to $5000 per player regardless of the market for the player.

        I think there’s a chance that the appeal results in the $5000 limit portion of the order being vacated.

        • It makes no sense to say that you can’t limit compensation but that you can limit it to $5000 per player regardless of the market for the player.

          First off, Wilken didn’t say that the NCAA could cap compensation for NILs at $5000 per year. She said that the NCAA could limit player compensation, but not to an amount less than $5000 per year. Big difference there.

          And as I explained, she accepted the argument that there is a level of player compensation that would negatively impact public appreciation for college athletics. That’s what Jeffrey Kessler will be attacking in his litigation.

          • Dawgaholic

            Not sure I get your point, I’d be shocked for the NCAA not to limit compensation to the lowest amount legally possible, $5000. If that’s what happens, this just gives players a stipend and there are no other real effects. $5,000 per player for football and men’s basketball is less than $500,000 per year. That is a tiny drop in the bucket for most power conference schools. Am I missing something where a school can be forced to give any individual player more than $5,000 per year more as a result of this ruling?

            • If you don’t see the difference between the $5000 being a floor or being a ceiling, I’m not sure what I can add to that.

              • Dawgaholic

                I get that it’s legally a floor – I just don’t practically see the NCAA ever going above the floor unless legally forced to do so. Therefore, in reality it is likely to be both a floor and ceiling. Do you think the NCAA will go above the floor?