Today’s money round-up

Four stories worth your consideration:

  • If you’re seriously concerned about where colleges will find the money to pay student-athletes if that dark day ever comes, let me suggest that such payment would be a better use of money than Michigan State spending half-a-million large on a PR firm to track social media on people who are upset with the school over the Larry Nassar scandal.  You really need to spend big bucks to confirm that somebody suing you doesn’t like you?  Hell, I’d have taken that gig for half price.
  • From California “In the midst of March Madness, Assemblymember Chris Holden announced introduction of his legislation, Assembly Bill 2747, the College Athletes’ Civil Rights Act of 2018, to protect to college athletes from harmful policies by the National College Athletics Association (NCAA). The legislation would allow college athletes to self-organize, create the possibility of the “Olympic Model” for college athletes such as commercial sponsorship, and help protect college athletes from abuses by college coaches, trainers, and other athletic staff.  If adopted, the legislation would be the first law in the country to regulate the NCAA.”
  • It looks like Jeffrey Kessler’s case is going to trial.  This doesn’t sound promising for the NCAA:  “In a 36-page opinion, Wilken did not give either side total victory. However, she rejected several of the NCAA’s critical contentions and set the stage for the plaintiffs to seek a new system that would apply to Division I men’s and women’s basketball players and to football players at Football Bowl Subdivision schools.”  Read the whole thing and remember a couple of key points.  One, Wilken has already ruled and been affirmed on appeal that the NCAA violated antitrust law.  Two, Kessler isn’t asking for money damages as relief, just asking for the restrictions set in place by the NCAA to be removed.  And this is where it seems to get particularly chilling for the NCAA’s chances:  “Under antitrust law, these types of restraints can exist if a defendant can show that the limits have certain benefits. In Wednesday’s ruling, Wilken said the NCAA produced “no evidence” to support six justifications it had offered in these cases, and she rejected the evidence they offered for a seventh.”
  • Everybody’s cashing in on Loyola-Chicago’s run to the Final Four, except, of course, the players, none of whom are expected to play in the NBA.

16 Comments

Filed under General Idiocy, Political Wankery, See You In Court, The NCAA

16 responses to “Today’s money round-up

  1. Got Cowdog

    NCAA best option? We ain’t paying players. They are all compensated equally under our umbrella. We will not negotiate. However ……
    If Gatorade wants to pay you to be in a commercial? We recommend you get representation and do so under contract. Other than that, we don’t care. If you would like to wear your jersey and represent your school, that is between you and your school.
    You cannot accept unrecorded payments from boosters or other individuals, you cannot accept payment from a professional program or representative thereof.
    Probably needs a little fleshing out but it makes sense to me to do it this way.

    Like

  2. gastr1

    I look forward to watching that situation in California. On first glance it looks promising, IMO.

    Like

  3. DawgByte

    “Everybody’s cashing in on Loyola-Chicago’s run to the Final Four, except, of course, the players, none of whom are expected to play in the NBA.”

    Gee Senator Snowflake life is soooooooooooooo unfair, perhaps you can design a “Participation” trophy for them.

    I’m searching Google to find stories indicating the NCAA or school administrators are holding a gun to players heads forcing them to participate in college basketball, but the search keeps coming up “NO RESULTS FOUND”.

    Like

    • I don’t think they’re having problems on the participation trophy front.

      Like

      • Reipar

        I think Loyola is the worst example you could use. Before a week ago the players had zero promo value and in another week they will be forgotten again. In the mean time the four scholarship made them $240,000.00. I see no way they could make that in endorsements from two weeks.

        Like

  4. paul

    I don’t watch college basketball. Or any basketball for that matter. But if it’s true that “none of Loyola’s players are likely to make the NBA” then I hope they win it all. That’s the underdog story to end all underdog stories. Just think of all those “the team is greater than it’s parts” stories. David slays Goliath. The one and done’s are done. Moneyball comes to basketball. Wait, um, oh well.

    Like

  5. Tony Barnfart

    im no expert on complex litigation, but the hard part for plaintiffs is going to be getting around the remedy hurdle that WAS thrown out on appeal. You’re very sly in the way you portray O’Bannon, but my reading of popular sources (too lazy and not paid to pull the opinions) is that the “antitrust violation ruling” is, as of now, a judgment hardly worth the paper it’s written on because the overturning of the remedy… basically saying that antitrust law does not require that schools open the door to “sums of cash untethered to educational expenses”

    Like

    • Once again, read the story carefully. Berman and Kessler aren’t seeking monetary damages. Regardless of what you think of O’Bannon, the monetary damages issue is totally irrelevant to this case.

      Like

    • Tony Barnfart

      but beyond that little question, my give-a-shit meter on this subject is waning. Not quite enough to walk away ;), but i can’t do attack dog today.

      Like

      • What is there to attack?

        Even the NCAA recognized that it was behind the eight-ball with regard to whether there was an antitrust violation. That’s why it argued seven justifications that the judge rejected.

        Not sure what your passive-aggressive approach here is supposed to convince me of, but maybe that’s your point. 😉

        Like