The plaintiffs in the O'Bannon suit vs the NCAA win. I can't see that going over with the alumni and fans...but you never know. Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130318/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/#ixzz2O01Ucdc6
The "plaintiff's hypothetical" is represented in a paper written last year by Stanford economics professor Roger Noll at the behest of the plaintiffs that suggests players should receive 50 percent of television revenue. (The money, according to the plaintiffs' plan, would be placed into a trust and given to the players upon graduation.) Given the values of the contracts recently signed by several conferences, that's half of billions of dollars. Sound high? Of course it is. But the plaintiffs consider this the start of a negotiation for a settlement that could become a fait accompli if Judge Claudia Wilken certifies the class in June. Figuratively speaking, the plaintiffs wrote down 50 percent on a slip of paper and slid it across the table; Delany and his colleagues wrote down zero percent and slid the paper back to the plaintiffs. The cost of a settlement now would probably be relatively low. If the NCAA and schools lose their gamble and the class gets certified in June, that cost will rise significantly because class certification makes quite real the specter of a courtroom loss that would financially destroy the NCAA. Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130318/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/#ixzz2O0RxlE7i
the guys at EDSBS nailed this one with today's Curious Index: http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2013/3/19/4123086/the-curious-index-3-19-2013 If you're too lazy to click, here are some highlights: Delany= The SEC response=
I've been saying this for some time, but unless something changes this could well be the end of the NCAA as you know it. The issue at hand, as I've been bitching about forever, is greed. The hypocrisy of the NCAA was basically all well and good for a long time, but starting some time in say.. the 90s, with the expanded means for marketing profits via all sorts of new media, the NCAA did a great job of squeezing just about every nickle it could from the system. I think this mindset of 'profit over all' has driven itself to the logical conclusion that you're going to have to pay these players or change the way you do things. Blame the players all you want, it wasn't the players who decided that the waiver of compensation in trade for academic scholarship was something designed to be an infinite bond. This isn't about the amount of money the NCAA is making off these players while they are in school, although it will be soon, it's about the NCAA making money off of these players long after their playing days are done. The NCAA had a nice racket going for a very long time. The end of this, like all things, is usually brought about by greed. They finally went to far and stepped right into a legal pot hole that I, frankly, don't see how they are going to escape.. not without some off the wall legal ruling, which I suppose you can never rule out. Perhaps one of our house barristers would care to chime in on this, as we are now out of my layman's understanding of the law. There's a nice breakdown done in January over on sbnation. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/1/31/3934886/ncaa-lawsuit-ed-obannon
Also.. An open letter from Jefferson Davis to Jim Delany. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/3/20/4126028/jim-delany-big-ten-ncaa-ed-obannon