NCAA’s leaders are sealing its fate

[papasmurfbell]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/18/ncaas-leaders-are-sealing-its-fate/

 

When things go badly, human nature searches for someone else to blame. Even when responsible party does the right thing and admits fault for an undesirable outcome, the internal wiring at a minimum sparks with the temptation to pin it all on another person.

When the NCAA suffers the fate that inevitably is coming, on a timetable much faster than anyone envisioned, president Mark Emmert should have no temptation to blame lawyers or unions or judges or senators or agents or parents or the media or anyone else. Emmert’s ongoing remarks about the state of college athletics, where more and more people are realizing that the “student-athlete” label has been for decades a scam to get free (or at least very cheap) labor, are serving only to broaden and strengthen the notion that something must be done to protect current and future student-athletes from being exploited by a system that pays everyone except the student-athletes.

Most recently, Emmert made an ill-advised appearance on ESPN Radio’s Mike & Mike in the Morning. Our friends at CFT have chronicled some of the highlights (lowlights), capped by the notion that student-athletes are “taking seats from a paying student.”

Yes, Emmert actually said that. By saying that, Emmert clumsily painted student-athletes, whose collective efforts bring in far more dollars per person than those paying full freight, as freeloaders.

Emmert and the conference commissioners and the university presidents and the athletic directors would be far better off saying nothing. That would at least delay the day of reckoning, giving the NCAA and the schools ample time to plan for change — and more opportunities to profit obscenely from the structure that currently is in place.

Instead, Emmert’s effort to stop the slow bleed could nick an artery, resulting in a public outcry for change so big and so loud that someone in a position of power will see a tangible political benefit to accelerating the process of bringing sweeping change to the world of college athletics.

Which in turn will bring change of some sort to the NFL, which continues to benefit from the free farm system known as college football. If/when (when) college football players must be paid fair market value, the farm system may not be free. And it may not be nearly as vast as it currently is.

 

[papasmurfbell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puMExmK0iHc

[thundercleetz]

I absolutely think the NCAA is a mess and student athletes should have some sort of compensation to cover living costs that are not covered by scholarship (UK coach Calipari outlined a good plan of what college athletes should be compensated for). However, what happens with women's sports? Heck, what happens for any sport other than college football or basketball (maybe baseball)? If we compensate based off of a "fair market value" as the article suggests, how would that work with Title IX as a true market rate for college sports other than basketball and football is probably close to zero?

[papasmurfbell]

I think it will be the down fall of most non revenue sports. I am fine with that. We are borrowing from China to underwrite hundreds of athletic depts. The NCAA will have to change it limits of min programs for eligibility. Basically I see football and bball and maybe 6 womens teams that would equal out for Title 9 requirements. It will be the end of baseball swimming and many others.

Ultimately this whole allusion was built on the backs of a concept the students designed and the schools stole from them for their own enrichment.

[papasmurfbell]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/17/cedric-ogbuehi-passed-on-the-draft-texas-am-bought-his-insurance/

Cedric Ogbuehi passed on the draft, Texas A&M bought his insurance

Texas A&M offensive tackle Cedric Ogbuehi likely would have been a first-round pick if he had entered this year’s NFL draft. But he decided to stay in school in large part because of an insurance policy that protected him in the event of a career-ending injury.

That is not unusual. What is unusual is that it wasn’t Ogbuehi or his parents who paid for the policy. It was Texas A&M, and it was perfectly legal under NCAA rules.

Bruce Feldman of FOX Sports reports that A&M badly wanted Ogbuehi to returnfor his senior season instead of turn pro, and so the school did the same thing a school does when it wants a high school player to enroll: It engaged in a recruiting process designed to persuade Ogbuehi that another year in school would be good for him. That recruiting pitch became a lot easier when Texas A&M researched the details of the NCAA rules regarding the Student Assistance Fund, which gives schools discretion to spend money on things like a player needing an emergency trip home to visit a sick relative. What Texas A&M discovered is that it’s permissible to pay for a player’s insurance policy with Student Assistance Fund money.

In the case of Ogbuehi, that means A&M may spend about $60,000 on an insurance policy that could pay Ogbuehi millions if he suffers a career-ending injury this season. A&M associate AD for football Justin Moore told Feldman that when officials in the athletic department discovered that NCAA rules allowed them to pay for Ogbuehi’s insurance, they were thrilled.

“I don’t think many schools know about it,” Moore said. “It’s a game-changer.”

It’s a good deal for A&M’s football program and for Ogbuehi, but as with virtually every story about the NCAA, it also raises questions about the NCAA’s definition of amateurism. Why is it OK for a school to pay for a player’s $60,000 insurance policy in one case, but not OK for a school to pay for a few bucks worth of pasta in another case? And when many student-athletes are just trying to make ends meet, is it really the best use of Student Assistance Fund money to spend $60,000 on a player who could have, if he wanted to, left for the NFL and made millions?

The NCAA may need to address some of those questions in the future. But for this year, A&M is very happy to have a tackle on its offensive line who’s good enough to be in the NFL. And considering that an NFL team would have been paying him millions, A&M getting him back for the cost of a five-figure insurance policy is a bargain.

 

[vmax]

Good point....

 

 

 

Shaw said if some of these ongoing arguments regarding the NCAA prompt student-athletes to be viewed as "employees" -- which is how several football players whom FOX Sports spoke to this week view themselves. They devote roughly 50 hours a week to their sport, but Shaw is hesitant to make alterations.
"That would change everything," Shaw said. "You could make the arguments that you're the student-athlete, so you work for the university now: 'Why am I still going to school here? I'm an employee just like the professors, and I need to put more time into my craft now because I'm being paid for it and less time for my school work,' and we don't want that. We need to hold ourselves to that 20-hour-a-week (rule), absolutely, but you need to use that other time to make sure that you're still going to school, still going to classes, still making sure that you're still learning and growing as a student because we all know there's such a small percentage of these people who are going to go on and become professional athletes. We need to make sure that these young people are being educated. We need to put the emphasis back on school. Not to put the emphasis more on football because there's money to be made. That's the exact wrong approach to take.
“My stance is, 'Let's hold the universities accountable. Let's hold the conferences accountable. Let's hold the student-athletes accountable to graduate on time.' That's where our emphasis needs to be. Not just on 'Can we give them more money?' No, let's make their lives better. Let's give them more perks, Let's make sure their daily lives are better so they can have the time to go to school and play football and make sure they are on pace to graduating. The food allowance changes -- those things are great. But just giving an 18-year-old a bunch of money? That is gonna cause more problems than anything else in my opinion."

[papasmurfbell]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/08/ncaa-takes-a-big-step-closer-to-extinction/

NCAA takes a big step closer to extinction

A 99-page ruling has resulted in one very big problem for the NCAA.

On Friday, years of labeling revenue-generating athletes as “students” in order to justify not sharing with them the billions of dollars that have come from tickets sales, media deals, and other efforts to capitalize on fan interest in college sports took a major step toward finally ending.

Judge Claudia Wilken has issued a decision in the case filed by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon, who challenged the NCAA’s refusal to pay players any of the money generated via video games and other products that lead to profit via their likenesses. The decision applies the ultimate scarlet “A” to the entire collegiate athletics system.

Reliance on the federal antitrust laws to overturn the rule against sharing money generated from player likenesses reinforces the argument that everything about the NCAA system violates federal antitrust laws. By banding together under a four-letter governing body that limits the schools to providing tuition, room, and board only to student-athletes, colleges have prevented fair competition for the services of those student-athletes by restricting what they can receive for the sacrifices they make and the risks they take.

The O’Bannon case was limited to player likenesses. Other pending lawsuits attack all other aspects of the process.

While plenty of conference commissioners and college presidents will now blame the eventual destruction of the current system and the potential elimination of sports that don’t generate revenue on the greed of lawyers, the problem has arisen due to the historic greed of the universities, which gambled on a system that has violated federal antitrust laws for decades without consequence. Those who finally took a stand against generations of wrongdoing shouldn’t be vilified, they should be applauded.

As to the college sports that have a robust market for ticket sales and TV rights, the applause will continue. Schools that were smart enough to come up with a way to illegally profit for all those years from the free labor of athletes also will be smart enough to come up with a way to make money in an environment that soon will require those athletes to be paid fairly for their services, without artificial rules or restrictions that exploit the persons who have been primarily responsible for making the money.

To the extent that the end of any antitrust violations results in less money being available for sports that don’t generate revenue, the potential elimination of those programs will be unfortunate. Still, why should the athletes who play at a high level the sports that generate money subsidize the sports that don’t?

 

It is coming to an end.

[thundercleetz]

I don't know too much about the legality but with the Power 5 being granted more autonomy, didn't that save the NCAA? It looks like we were moving more toward what the court ruling you posted with the conferences being given autonomy.

[papasmurfbell]

Players will go after past monies. Also to pay players whey will have to kill off non rev sports but not to many to fill the title 9 requirements.

[thundercleetz]

Players will go after past monies. Also to pay players whey will have to kill off non rev sports but not to many to fill the title 9 requirements.

It will be interesting to see what happens. The NCAA has already said they will appeal:

 

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=11334265

 

This could take years through the court system. With the power conferences in agreement with the NCAA, there is near unlimited funds for legal fees. How long can the opposing side last? I have a feeling there will be a settlement.

[papasmurfbell]

They can last forever. The NCAA has lost on every level and their structure is inately illegal so the lawyers will keep working until the big payday comes. Also the 5 power conferences when they get to 16 can elect to leave the NCAA as a governing body. That means they keep all the cash.

[thundercleetz]

They can last forever. The NCAA has lost on every level and their structure is inately illegal so the lawyers will keep working until the big payday comes. Also the 5 power conferences when they get to 16 can elect to leave the NCAA as a governing body. That means they keep all the cash.

All I'm saying as long as the NCAA doesn't piss off the Power 5 by granting increasing amounts of autonomy, there will become a point where lawyer fees for the players will eat too much into the potential benefits. I definitely think there will be a settlement reached before the courts can render a final decision.

[papasmurfbell]

It depends. The players can go for lawyer fees also. Really cripple the NCAA.

[thundercleetz]

It depends. The players can go for lawyer fees also. Really cripple the NCAA.

I guess that's the risk they take. Also, like the NFL concussion suite, longer it takes to settle, the more former players join the suite the more the potential pot has to be shared.

[papasmurfbell]

The O'Bannon case was made a class maybe two yrs ago. There are more and more suits all the time. The NCAA will be bogged down in them.

[thundercleetz]

I haven't read this yet but it looks pretty detailed.

 

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=11329099

[dc.]

Maryland made a nice move today - both for athletes and their own reputation - all athletes at UMD will receive 4 year "lifetime" scholarship offers and guarantees. No more injuries ending scholarship offers. And if you lose eligibility before you graduate or move on before you graduate, they will allow you to return anytime on scholarship to complete you degree (assuming you are in good academic standing).

 

More will move this way as NCAA has allowed schools to move beyond "one year" scholarships (most were unofficially four year offers, of course, but still). Being among the first to go this way is a good move.

[papasmurfbell]

Wow. I wonder if it applies for guys who just don't get better.

[dc.]

It applies to every athlete. The only exception will likely be for those dismissed for conduct (arrest) or academic issues. But that's not the same as just cutting a kid.

 

The other thing it probably doesn't guarantee is the right to play. You could come on basketball scholarship, get cut, and be guaranteed a scholarship but not a place on the team. That won't satisfy some when they get bumped

[papasmurfbell]

No PT is ever guaranteed. I just think a kid should be able to finish his degree and not get cut. Hell if the program wants to move on and is willing to let the scholarship turn into something other than athletic but they are off the team I am fine with that.

[dc.]

Yeah I'm not saying I disagree. I just meant that some players will probably leave regardless of the scholarship guarantee for the chance to play. Actually helps UMD

[papasmurfbell]

Hey if they do that it is a call the player makes. I would tell them to stay and get their degree. UMD is a place that if you can play you will be able to show your stuff to go pro. If you aren't that good there you wont be elsewhere either so just get your degree from a very good school.

[papasmurfbell]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/sports/jeffrey-kessler-envisions-open-market-for-ncaa-college-athletes.html

A Legal Titan of Sports Labor Disputes Sets His Sights on the N.C.A.A. Jeffrey Kessler Envisions Open Market for College Athletes

First there was a victory for Kain Colter, a brawny Northwestern quarterback who wanted to form a union. Then there was a triumph for Ed O’Bannon, a former U.C.L.A. basketball star who did not like seeing others make money by featuring him in a video game. Both cases dealt serious blows to the foundations of the embattled N.C.A.A., which is built on the idea of athletes as unpaid amateurs.

But the N.C.A.A.’s most formidable opponent may be coming down the pike: Jeffrey Kessler, a stout, 60-year-old antitrust lawyer from Brooklyn.

In March, Kessler filed a lawsuit against the N.C.A.A. and the major college athletics conferences that he said would take down the “cartel” controlling college sports and would do away with rules against paying college athletes.

College sports experts see Kessler’s case as the biggest threat of all, and with reform in the air, they say he has reason to feel confident. While the N.C.A.A. has shown an inclination to tiptoe toward significant change, Kessler’s case takes a bazooka to the entire model of college athletics.

“What we are seeking to do is remove the shackles so that schools can decide themselves what is the fair and appropriate way to take care of their players,” Kessler said.

Kessler envisions an open market that would allow colleges to compete for the services of top athletes by offering enhanced scholarships, better medical care or cash — potentially lots of cash.

“If you have a school like Texas that earns close to $200 million for their football or basketball programs, you might decide it is fair to give some of that to the players who are generating the money,” he said. (Texas athletics generated $165.7 million in 2012-13, the university said.)

Kessler believes that there would be plenty of money to go around, and that it is only fair for a market to decide how athletes are compensated.

In Kessler’s future world, a top high school basketball prospect could be recruited by colleges just as the Cleveland Cavaliers courted LeBron James. There could be agents, and money, and maybe even a salary cap down the road. The prospect could choose where to go based on the coach, the facilities, the scholarship — or who was offering the most money.

“The players won’t get one dollar more than the markets decide they are worth,” Kessler said.

Kessler’s case is working its way through the court system. The judge has held preliminary hearings, and if the suit makes it past the legal challenges ahead, a trial could take place as soon as the fall of 2015.

The N.C.A.A. has been under siege both in the courts and in the court of public opinion, and the organization has taken steps toward a change. The five wealthiest conferences recently gained the power to do more for their athletes, and a federal judge ruled that the N.C.A.A.’s ban on payments violated antitrust laws.

For all of his revolutionary ambition, Kessler is hardly a wide-eyed activist. He was the lawyer who successfully negotiated the free-agency systems in the N.F.L. and the N.B.A., models now at the core of professional sports. Now he is looking to do the same at the university level.

Continue reading the main story

Kessler filed the suit in federal court in New Jersey on behalf of Martin Jenkins, a former Clemson football player.

Kessler calls it “the freedom case,” but others call it the Kessler case. (It is worth noting that in the other high-profile N.C.A.A. lawsuit, it was the plaintiff, O’Bannon, who took top billing, not the lawyer.)

With Kessler’s Brooklyn accent and his Upper East Side address, he hardly seems like a sports heavyweight. He completed his undergraduate studies and law degree at Columbia, an academic powerhouse that nevertheless occupies “a distant world from what my case is about,” he said. He is a self-described hacking golfer who as a child relied on his enthusiasm to overachieve at street football and basketball in the small community of Seagate, near Coney Island.

A few years ago, Kessler was a top partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf until it collapsed in the largest-ever law firm bankruptcy.

He now leads the antitrust and competition practice at Winston & Strawn, often traveling to Japan to represent clients. But he has long been drawn to the plight of athletes, a group he believes to have been historically disadvantaged. As a leading lawyer in the sports genre,Kessler has gained fame and made millions of dollars a year.

The college sports world is watching Kessler closely. Gerry Gurney, a former athletics executive at Oklahoma who opposes the professionalization of sports, fears that if Kessler wins, college sports will become further removed from meaningful education.

“You can assuredly expect college sports to change drastically,” Gurney said. “It would certainly end all vestiges of the amateurism model.”

That, Kessler argues, is precisely the point.

He said that those pushing an academic agenda in big-time college sports were living in a “world that doesn’t exist.”

“What they’d like to do is turn back the clock and not have the schools running their own cable television networks, not having the schools earning all this money, not having the head coaches making $6 million or more,” Kessler said. “They want to go back to a world where there weren’t two gigantic businesses being run in football and basketball by those schools who run it.”

No one is taking Kessler lightly. The N.C.A.A. has retained Jeffrey Mishkin, a longtime courtroom adversary of Kessler’s who has represented N.B.A. owners in every major case they have faced over the past 35 years.

In a statement released by the N.C.A.A. in April, Mishkin called Kessler’s lawsuit “a sweeping attack on the continued importance and vitality of the principle of amateurism in college athletics.”

“Courts have upheld that principle against antitrust attack for more than 30 years,” said Mishkin, a partner with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. He declined to comment for this article because of the pending litigation.

The potential courtroom bout between Kessler and Mishkin sets up a showdown that could set the path for the future of college sports.

“I’ve thought it was like Ali-Frazier watching them go at each other with oral arguments,” said Ron Klempner, who was recently the interim executive director of the N.B.A. players association and has partnered with Kessler for 25 years.

Kessler’s past cases not only led to the free-agency systems in the N.F.L. and the N.B.A. but also ended the 2011 lockouts in each sport. He has earned fans among prominent athletes. He likes recounting a conversation with Patrick Ewing, who told him, “I could see how you are great in the court, but I don’t think you’d be very great on the court.”

Kessler has closely watched the N.C.A.A. take on other adversaries.

A federal court ruling in the O’Bannon case on Aug. 8 opened the door to players sharing in the revenues from broadcasts and video games. The case, which is being appealed, could make way for universities to set up trust funds for athletes to collect on their likenesses in broadcasts and video games.

Earlier, Northwestern football players won the right to form a union. That decision, which is being appealed to the full National Labor Relations Board, notably recognizes the players as employees.

The N.C.A.A. also agreed to settle lawsuits over its handling of concussions, yet another sign that the organization is trying to answer its critics.

“As time goes on and as other decisions come down, they only make us feel more confident about the ultimate outcome,” Kessler said.

Kessler feels as if he might be on to something big — and on the right side of history. During a recent dinner with Fred Berkon, a friend of 20 years, the discussion turned toward the N.C.A.A. Kessler told Berkon, “One day, kids will say, ‘You mean college players didn’t get paid at some point?’ ”

This is the one that should do it. The NCAA will be a shell of itself. I also expect to see many athletic depts die off.