Forums

by **RamsteinGator** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:07 am

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."

I'm not surprised by this at all. We've all commented for years here how schools and TV benefit from selling players' likenesses, but heaven forbid a player holding a bake sale in high school to play in an invite-only all star game.

I've recently made comments stating how our coaching carousel reflecting lack of commitment to the program reminds of the NFL--the very reason I don't like the NFL.

This issue has the potential to change college athletics far greater than the conference realignments every could. Hopefully the players get what's they've earned, but I don't think the overall impact of this can be good for fans. The very idea of a talented 18-year-old focusing on the $$ he'll get from the latest video game won't translate well onto the field. We see issues frequently regarding professional prima donnas. Can you imagine those attitudes among 10th graders getting recruited by college coaches? I can already see new positions in athletic departments focused solely on how to make the most money for each potential recruit. This could get ugly.

by **law98gator** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:53 am

This is no victory. It just means the judge will listen to the cause rather than strike it immediately.

It's also a trial judge. The law won't be made by a trial judge.

by **oxrageous** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:14 am

I doubt this will even make it through the court system in our lifetimes. All it will do is make lawyers richer.

by **Gouryella** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:13 am

Nothing to see here. From all I read on the topic, it seemed like actually more of a win for the NCAA than the players. They're not going to change the whole "amateur" status thing.

by **WhoGator** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:19 pm

Sharing in a program's profits? Should go both ways... maybe some of those Tennerc recruits should be responsible for picking up part of th $200M debt

:chomp:

by **rogdochar** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:26 pm

WhoGator wrote:Sharing in a program's profits? Should go both ways... maybe some of those Tennerc recruits should be responsible for picking up part of th $200M debt

Excellent free-enterprise point ....... and will the athlete's "take"
have a mandated "tax" to go to support higher education purposes?
And will certain "booster-corps" be reined in on buying the best
players ? Judge is off-sides.

by **law98gator** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:42 pm

Gouryella wrote:Nothing to see here. From all I read on the topic, it seemed like actually more of a win for the NCAA than the players. They're not going to change the whole "amateur" status thing.

Nobody won. The judge just said she will hear additional motions, evidence, arguments, and maybe a trial someday. The case will continue. It means nothing more.

by **BSJGator** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:38 pm

oxrageous wrote:I doubt this will even make it through the court system in our lifetimes. All it will do is make lawyers richer.

Is there anything that doesn't make lawyers richer? I mean, except for their ex-wives? :lol:

Forums

Who is online

Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share

Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share

Re: Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share

Re: Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share

Re: Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share

Re: Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share

Re: Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share

Re: Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share

Re: Judge says NCAA athletes can get their share