The end of LIVE college TV broadcasts?

[96Gatorcise]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money

In dismissing a motion by the NCAA to prevent football and men's basketball players from legally pursuing a cut of live broadcast revenues, a federal court judge Tuesday raised the stakes for the governing body of college sports as it defends its economic model.

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.

Basically the suit(potential class action) says the players should get a cut of any TV money from live and re-broadcasts of games. The article says the real money is in the the LIVE broadcast, so couldn't the NCAA just tape delay all the games to save on LIVE action fees?

That is if they lose the pending suit.


This may be good for the players but the fans will end up making up the money somewhere.

[GatorJeff]

If fans know the outcome, they aren't likely to watch......unless it's their school and their team won the game.

[gatorbogey]

might just get around this by having the money go into a large pool of "scholarship" or "stipend" money that the athletes can draw from. % based on % their team is on the air.

sounds like a legitimate case and i can see that it wouldnt necessarily effect how/when games are played or shown. i think it would be interesting to see how they set up the distribution and 'draws' for eligible players.

i could see lawsuits down the road from players/schools demanding more air time too. couldn't you see legislators getting involved to have their schools shown more for more $$ to their school's players, etc?

[your_perfect_enemy]

I'm not sure I understand under what basis they are suing for. They volunteered to play these sports that they knew going into didnt pay them, why is the ncaa obligated to share any money? You can argue which ever way you want about the fairness, but the ncaa set up this system obvioulsy rigging the rules in their favor and said if you want to play under these rules you're welcome to if not best of luck to you.

Plus outside of 25ish(?) schools don't most athletic departments lose money?

Didnt this whole thing start over o'bannon suing about the video games?

[Swampmaster]

The article says the real money is in the the LIVE broadcast, so couldn't the NCAA just tape delay all the games to save on LIVE action fees?.

the players' lawyers will demand a cut of any fees the network gets for live or tape delay broadcasting.

[bposs]

I'm not sure I understand under what basis they are suing for. They volunteered to play these sports that they knew going into didnt pay them, why is the ncaa obligated to share any money? You can argue which ever way you want about the fairness, but the ncaa set up this system obvioulsy rigging the rules in their favor and said if you want to play under these rules you're welcome to if not best of luck to you.

Plus outside of 25ish(?) schools don't most athletic departments lose money?

Didnt this whole thing start over o'bannon suing about the video games?

If they want money, go start football clubs not associated with the colleges. These kids don't value the free education they are receiving.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

If they want money, go start football clubs not associated with the colleges. These kids don't value the free education they are receiving.

The big problem is the collusion between the NCAA and the NFL that creates a monopoly. A kid has no choice but to go to college if he wants to make the NFL. I think that should be addressed somehow, honestly.

[Gatorrick22]

It's the broadcasters fault for trying to make more money through extra fees levied on live broadcasts.

Greedy ESPiN is inadvertently killing the "student athlete" arrangement we enjoy in college sports.

This thread could end-up in Too Hot. :wave:

[Gatorrick22]

So this California (activist) judge says that college athletes can get T.V. money?



Now the (NCAA and its co-defendants) are facing potential liability in the billions of dollars instead of tens or hundreds of millions. It's a more accurate context for what the players deserve.

http://espn.go.com/colleges/florida/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money

And this is going straight to Too Hot because it's political in nature. At least her past rulings seem to have been.


This is the same judge that ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

Federal Judge Finds DOMA Unconstitutional | Last night, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in California ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in a case called Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Clinton-appointed federal judge found that DOMA violates the Constitution’s equal protections clause due to the fact that, along with a provision of the state’s tax law, it limits same-sex couples and domestic partners from fully participating in the California Public Employees Retirement System. This marks the first federal court decision on DOMA since President Obama announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage on May 9. Two other judges and a bankruptcy court have similarly ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
Tags:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/25/490353/federal-judge-finds-doma-unconstitutional/?mobile=nc

[phatGator]

There will be a host of unintended consequences. If every player gets the same then the good schools subsidize the schools no one wants to watch. If it is prorated based in air time, then in recruiting you can say come to my school and you'll make more. The schools should also be reimbursed out of that pool for the costs of education, transportation to and from games, and room and board.

How to divide up the money just on one team? Everyone the same? Bonus for starting? Stats?

I have no love for the NCAA but this is ridiculous. OTOH, the players should get something for their likeness and name being used in video games and for jersey sales.

I would also like to see that NCAA execs have to travel and stay and eat no better than teams.

[Gatorrick22]

There will be a host of unintended consequences. If every player gets the same then the good schools subsidize the schools no one wants to watch. If it is prorated based in air time, then in recruiting you can say come to my school and you'll make more. The schools should also be reimbursed out of that pool for the costs of education, transportation to and from games, and room and board.

How to divide up the money just on one team? Everyone the same? Bonus for starting? Stats?

I have no love for the NCAA but this is ridiculous. OTOH, the players should get something for their likeness and name being used in video games and for jersey sales.

I would also like to see that NCAA execs have to travel and stay and eat no better than teams.

This is "Pandora's Box" - which should never be opened.

[Bradass]

So this California (activist) judge says that college athletes can get T.V. money?




And this is going straight to Too Hot because it's political in nature. At least her past rulings seem to have been.


This is the same judge that ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

This would only end up in Too Hot because you're trying to make it political. Her ruling on DOMA (which was correct...:wave:) has nothing at all to do with this ruling on the NCAA.

[gatormoe1]

I'm sick of this crap about paying the college athletes.... They already get paid!! It's called a free scholarship, free dorm room, free clothes and free food while they are in college!

How about this, take away their scholarship and pay them just enough to pay for classes, books, food, dorms and maybe a little extra for school supply money.

[Gatorrick22]

This would only end up in Too Hot because you're trying to make it political. Her ruling on DOMA (which was correct...:wave:) has nothing at all to do with this ruling on the NCAA.

It's a pattern in her deliberations that you obviously don't want divulged.

Her ruling on just this case alone is way out there, and will be shot-down by the SCOTUS.

[theologator]

might just get around this by having the money go into a large pool of "scholarship" or "stipend" money that the athletes can draw from. % based on % their team is on the air.

sounds like a legitimate case and i can see that it wouldnt necessarily effect how/when games are played or shown. i think it would be interesting to see how they set up the distribution and 'draws' for eligible players.

i could see lawsuits down the road from players/schools demanding more air time too. couldn't you see legislators getting involved to have their schools shown more for more $$ to their school's players, etc?

After you deduct the cost of their scholarship, medical care. amenities, coaching, travel? If you're going to start down that road the discussion should be on net income, not gross revenues. The players get significant benefits and most of them seem to get lost in the discussion.

This would effectively destroy most other collegiate sports, since they are largely funded by the few revenue producing sports.

[Gatorrick22]

This would only end up in Too Hot because you're trying to make it political. Her ruling on DOMA (which was correct...:wave:) has nothing at all to do with this ruling on the NCAA.

Are you the same "Bradass" from wiki leaks or ..........pretender?

[GunGator]

They clearly should also get a cut of the gate, and concession stands also any bowl payout of course. If you see them in public be ready to fork over some cash /s

[desoto87]

Woo hoo - this will make it a better reason to see games live and possibly remove the momentum killing tv time outs!

[Gatorrick22]

After you deduct the cost of their scholarship, medical care. amenities, coaching, travel? If you're going to start down that road the discussion should be on net income, not gross revenues. The players get significant benefits and most of them seem to get lost in the discussion.

This would effectively destroy most other collegiate sports, since they are largely funded by the few revenue producing sports.

And, most kids playing football would still end their college days owing their respective Universities.

[96Gatorcise]

I'm sick of this crap about paying the college athletes.... They already get paid!! It's called a free scholarship, free dorm room, free clothes and free food while they are in college!

How about this, take away their scholarship and pay them just enough to pay for classes, books, food, dorms and maybe a little extra for school supply money.

so for the sake of argument and what I think was part of the original filing, shouldn't the athlete be compensated for rebroadcasts after they have already left the school.

When they rebroadcast the 1996 NC game the school still benefits by getting a fee to show it, so why shouldn't the players in that game 20 years later get a piece of that fee?

I think they have long since covered any free education they received.

[gatormoe1]

so for the sake of argument and what I think was part of the original filing, shouldn't the athlete be compensated for rebroadcasts after they have already left the school.

When they rebroadcast the 1996 NC game the school still benefits by getting a fee to show it, so why shouldn't the players in that game 20 years later get a piece of that fee?

I think they have long since covered any free education they received.

After college, sure.

[Bradass]

Are you the same "Bradass" from wiki leaks or ..........pretender?

I have no idea what you're talking about

[Gatorrick22]

I have no idea what you're talking about

Never mind....... Is that you playing? Can't tell if it's guitar or bass.

[Bradass]

Never mind....... Is that you playing? Can't tell if it's guitar or bass.

Yep, bass. Started a band here in Tallahassee last spring to take up, ya know, all the free time I have in law school. :tongue:
http://www.facebook.com/TheSocialCall

[GatorAvatar]

I'm sick of this crap about paying the college athletes.... They already get paid!! It's called a free scholarship, free dorm room, free clothes and free food while they are in college!

How about this, take away their scholarship and pay them just enough to pay for classes, books, food, dorms and maybe a little extra for school supply money.

Based on how much they bring in to some schools (football subsidizes lacrosse, women basketball etc) you could argue that the football/basketball (men) players are being abused.

[WeWinWeEat]

The whole "free education" thing is a little misleading. A lot of these kids never graduate and really have no business being students. Some people just aren't cut out for higher education.

[GatorAvatar]

The whole "free education" thing is a little misleading. A lot of these kids never graduate and really have no business being students. Some people just aren't cut out for higher education.

Exactly

[Claygator]

There is plenty wrong with the current system, but if revenues from tv and the gate have to be shared with players, you can kiss college football as we know it goodbye.

[SmootyGator]

The big problem is the collusion between the NCAA and the NFL that creates a monopoly. A kid has no choice but to go to college if he wants to make the NFL. I think that should be addressed somehow, honestly.

Interesting... I've never thought about it this way.

[SmootyGator]

Based on how much they bring in to some schools (football subsidizes lacrosse, women basketball etc) you could argue that the football/basketball (men) players are being abused.

Is it really the players that bring all of that money in? If all of the top level (say FBS) recruits could go pro or had a semi-pro league they could go into right out of high school, and FBS teams now had to recruit lower level (FCS) recruits, how much less money do you think the football program would make? I'm willing to be none, or not much less at all.

[g8rfan22]

I'm sick of this crap about paying the college athletes.... They already get paid!! It's called a free scholarship, free dorm room, free clothes and free food while they are in college!

How about this, take away their scholarship and pay them just enough to pay for classes, books, food, dorms and maybe a little extra for school supply money.

You only left out "free clothes" in your solution. So if they didn't get some Nike apparel you would be satisfied? It's not as if they get a wardrobe of clothes. They only get cleats from Nike so they are getting "free shoes".

They don't get an endless supply of food. If they live off campus, they have to pay their own rent. Outside of the treatments (nutrional & therapy), there isn't much difference from a full-ride scholarship.

[g8rfan22]

Is it really the players that bring all of that money in? If all of the top level (say FBS) recruits could go pro or had a semi-pro league they could go into right out of high school, and FBS teams now had to recruit lower level (FCS) recruits, how much less money do you think the football program would make? I'm willing to be none, or not much less at all.

If the product on the field is not worthy of the expense to attend, you can bet the revenue earned would be substantially less.

[theologator]

The whole "free education" thing is a little misleading. A lot of these kids never graduate and really have no business being students. Some people just aren't cut out for higher education.

They have a higher graduation rate than the general student body, on average nationwide. Yes there are sad tales of kids who cannot do the work, but there are far more who do accomplish a lot.

I would like to see ALL schools required to offer free tuition to ex-players coming back to finish their degrees - as long as they left in good standing. UF does that. The actual cost to the school is minimal since you're just talking another seat in a classroom and another set of work to grade, another file to process. The benefit to the kid is enormous especially if they are not able to play professionally.

And it isn't just the education. It's coaching, medical care, life lessons, tutoring, opportunity, etc. Even a walk-on significantly boosts his chances at getting interviews and jobs.

The low income kids also get Pell grants, which is cash in their pocket.

[Gatorrick22]

Yep, bass. Started a band here in Tallahassee last spring to take up, ya know, all the free time I have in law school. :tongue:
http://www.facebook.com/TheSocialCall

Rock on.....

[oakgator]

The big problem is the collusion between the NCAA and the NFL that creates a monopoly. A kid has no choice but to go to college if he wants to make the NFL. I think that should be addressed somehow, honestly.

What collusion (serious question)?

[gatormoe1]

You only left out "free clothes" in your solution. So if they didn't get some Nike apparel you would be satisfied? It's not as if they get a wardrobe of clothes. They only get cleats from Nike so they are getting "free shoes".

They don't get an endless supply of food. If they live off campus, they have to pay their own rent. Outside of the treatments (nutrional & therapy), there isn't much difference from a full-ride scholarship.

Why live off campus? They are already getting paid to play sports. A free ride to college isn't free. Maybe they can get paid for rebroadcasts AFTER they get out of college but not before. They DO NOT deserve to be paid anymore money. Paying them will ruin the game.

[Gatorrick22]

What collusion (serious question)?

Minimum age limit, and three years out of high school..... Weak case for collusion.

[lurkingator1]

it's the end of the world as we know it ... i feel fine :sick:

[bluedog]

regarding the money being made on rebroadcasted games...this is next to nil ...The schools own no rights to their games these days... either the broadcaster, conference, or bowl in most cases own the copyright. Typically these re-airs are on local tv channels that pay a few thousand bucks to re-air them, and probably make a few thousand buck on the advertising they sell around them...

my point is there is not much money in non-live at all...most likely why they have broadened this to live game revenues, and were lucky enough to find a judge who would oblige...

my question is how could the NCAA leave themselves so open to this...through out the whole athlete clearinghouse process do they not have them sign away their rights to any revenues generated?

Now ESPN to me is the real sitting duck, and where all the real money is being made, and in turn the conferences they have huge tv deals with...The athletes very likely never entered into any agreement with those entities who are making huge money off them.

[Gatorrick22]

All schools have to do is make the kids or mom/dad sign a letter of intent that is in and of itself a contract, and bam, back to business.

If the NCAA makes it impossible for armature status for any kid that tries to make money while in college. Then all should be fine.

[demosthenes]

Minimum age limit, and three years out of high school..... Weak case for collusion.

There are other leagues that would take players if they didn't want to go the college football route, just like basketball. Of course they aren't glamorous...

[NoahBeanBizzel]

If fans know the outcome, they aren't likely to watch......unless it's their school and their team won the game.

Even then, what fun is that?

[g8rfan22]

Why live off campus? They are already getting paid to play sports. A free ride to college isn't free. Maybe they can get paid for rebroadcasts AFTER they get out of college but not before. They DO NOT deserve to be paid anymore money. Paying them will ruin the game.

I agree they shouldn't get paid.

[phatGator]

If I were the school I would argue that the player is an employee and has been compensated by the scholarship. I would argue that the employer owns the work product and any intellectual property, such as the media broadcasts, associated with it. Of course, then the schools would have to pay employment taxes. That might open up cases for worker's comp claims for injured players and unemployment claims for cut players. This might be solved by making them independent contractors. But then you could not make a player sit out if he transfers (something I don't like anyway).

I would also argue that the schools are entitled to a share of the players' future sports earnings, sort of like palimony, because the future earnings are a direct result of the coaching, training, and opportunities provided by the school. The players could counter that workers have free movement.

But then, what about non-scholarship players, who are not compensated? Pandora's box is transparent compared to this issue.

[corpgator]

Is it really the players that bring all of that money in? If all of the top level (say FBS) recruits could go pro or had a semi-pro league they could go into right out of high school, and FBS teams now had to recruit lower level (FCS) recruits, how much less money do you think the football program would make? I'm willing to be none, or not much less at all.

I guarantee you that viewership would go down. It was down during the years when all the good basketball players went straight to the NBA and that was only a small % of those available. If you lost all of the FBS players, people would stop watching.

[Gatorrick22]

There are other leagues that would take players if they didn't want to go the college football route, just like basketball. Of course they aren't glamorous...

Yep, reinforces my/that position.

[nflgator]

How much do you pay the band, cheerleaders and others involved.

[phatGator]

Will Title 9 be used to demand that women athletes get equal pay?

[gatorbogey]

After you deduct the cost of their scholarship, medical care. amenities, coaching, travel? If you're going to start down that road the discussion should be on net income, not gross revenues. The players get significant benefits and most of them seem to get lost in the discussion.

This would effectively destroy most other collegiate sports, since they are largely funded by the few revenue producing sports.

yeah, i think you do need to factor in all the costs - care and educational, room and board, trainer/medical/practice/coaching costs, uniform/equipment, etc etc...factor them all in. tv 'marketing' costs as well.

one thing that i don't think gets enough play in some of these discussion is that there is, to me, two sets of college fans: the alumni types, and then the general public type. alumni - like me, will watch and cheer for and attend the games regardless of the product, for the most part. you could have a bunch of frat boys out there running around, and i'd still be a gator fan. the general public type is attracted by the product - the pagentry and entertainment and product on the field - like an nfl fan.

to me, when they talk about the ncaa making millions/billion$ off the college player they need to realize the college fan has a different makeup from the pro fan. that you could shut down college football the way it is right now and we'd find a way to play georgia 'on the side' w/ a "club team" made up from the student body. we'd attend the game, in 'secret' and we'd cheer our gators on - likewise for the georgia fan. i'm saying, it's not about revenue generation at the root of it - as some would frame it, it's about the rivalry. it's about the competition. and the growth of the sport into what it is today, isn't necessarily about the players, but from the fans and at its root: pure bragging rights.

[MusicCityGator]

Is it really the players that bring all of that money in? If all of the top level (say FBS) recruits could go pro or had a semi-pro league they could go into right out of high school, and FBS teams now had to recruit lower level (FCS) recruits, how much less money do you think the football program would make? I'm willing to bet none, or not much less at all.

I have said for years that fans don't support individual players. That was seen in the failure of the fly by night attempts at showing off season football with these make believe leagues that last a year or two.

I would love to one day see the schools and ncaa drop all the concessions that have been made for these kids that don't really have any business in college and put real student athletes back on the field. Don't fool yourself. People are not pulling for the athlete, they are cheering for the school, jersey color, team that is represented. They will still watch, route, and cheer for the student that is representing their school and wearing the school colors.

[gatorbogey]

I have said for years that fans don't support individual players. That was seen in the failure of the fly by night attempts at showing off season football with these make believe leagues that last a year or two.

I would love to one day see the schools and ncaa drop all the concessions that have been made for these kids that don't really have any business in college and put real student athletes back on the field. Don't fool yourself. People are not pulling for the athlete, they are cheering for the school, jersey color, team that is represented. They will still watch, route, and cheer for the student that is representing their school and wearing the school colors.

i'm exactly in-tune w/ this. problem is, this aspect isn't presented in the media - especially in metropolitan areas like miami that view the game as an extension of the pro's. i wonder if that would impact how a judge would see the issue in terms of the law. but i think they may be biased by the revenue-aspects that 'players' bring to the schools [that's how you see it being presented in the media]...and not the fan support of the school aspect. the alumni and a great deal of the college fanbase will support the game regardless of who's on the field - as long as they are in a gator or auburn or buckeye, etc jesey, we'll be in the stands or tuning in to watch the game.

[NoahBeanBizzel]

So, lost in the debate about whether or not they should be paid, how do you guys see this impacting live broadcasting? I mean, I can't see that happening. Not for at least a few years, anyway. But it's a valid question.