The end of LIVE college TV broadcasts?

[96Gatorcise]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...levision-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]

Originally Posted by 96Gatorcise

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by bposs

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.

[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/...levision-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/2012/0...nal/?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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Bradass]

Originally Posted by Gatorrick22

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...) 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]

Originally Posted by Bradass

This would only end up in Too Hot because you're trying to make it political. Her ruling on DOMA (which was correct...) 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Bradass

This would only end up in Too Hot because you're trying to make it political. Her ruling on DOMA (which was correct...) 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]

Originally Posted by theologator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.