mnstate0fhockey
New member
Relevancy?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
- Thread starter jnacc
- Start date
Relevancy?
HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
New member
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
Actually, that makes my point, but hey, good try. C for effort? Or should I inflate your grade to an 'A' since you were a "student-athlete"?
Actually, that makes my point, but hey, good try. C for effort? Or should I inflate your grade to an 'A' since you were a "student-athlete"?
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Actually, that makes my point, but hey, good try. C for effort? Or should I inflate your grade to an 'A' since you were a "student-athlete"?
Sarcasm isn't persuasive. If you want to discuss the subject, lay out your argument and we can have a discussion.
Or, you can continue to chastise people for not sharing your viewpoint and get nowhere.
MaineHockeyMom
Banned
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
what is odd is that so few people are commenting on the ISSUE AT HAND IN THE CASE
the issue is whether the NCAA is guilty of an Antitrust violation for its anticompetitive stance that student athletes may make NO money from their likenesses.
not whether they received "enough" reimbursement from the colleges in exchange for thier service.
what is odd is that so few people are commenting on the ISSUE AT HAND IN THE CASE
the issue is whether the NCAA is guilty of an Antitrust violation for its anticompetitive stance that student athletes may make NO money from their likenesses.
not whether they received "enough" reimbursement from the colleges in exchange for thier service.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Here you go...
<a href="http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/antitrustlaws.html">http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/antitrustlaws.html</a>
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
I personally disagree that the article is an "incredible piece of journalism" for a number of reasons (I assume you're referring to The Atlantic article posted by bothman, not Tipsy). Admittedly, Branch has done a good job of documenting the historical litany of key legal battles involving the NCAA. I won't take the time to analyze it in detail, but discerning minds would regard his journalistic approach as sloppy reductionism at several junctures, while lacking sufficient evidence to support some of his panoptic indictments against the NCAA to enhance his "pay for play" worldview.
For example, Branch mentions the suspension of Cam Newton in 2010 which was based upon an alleged rules violation that his father accepted a "pay for play" proposal from Miss. St. Subsequently, Newton was reinstated a day later because the NCAA found no substantive and incriminating evidence that Cam knew of or received any financial support from Miss. St. So Branch, in full reductionist regalia, uses this as a pretext to essentially dupe the reader into thinking the NCAA entered into a smoke filled room somewhere to conceal evidence and acquiesce to "public demand" to capitalize on the projected financial windfall of the SEC and BCS championship games and appease market forces. Then he quotes Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, out of context to support his lofty conjecture and further malign the NCAA. The real facts are that the NCAA was exactly right in their assessment of the situation involving Newton's reinstatement. That's not sound journalism, but more akin to the genre of a letter to the editor on any editorial page.
The obvious bias and embellishment in Branch's rhetorical rant begins in the opening abstract of the article which reads, "the real scandal is the very structure of college sports, wherein student-athletes generate billions of dollars for universities and private companies while earning nothing for themselves". They earn "nothing"?? Really?? What about the $150-200k paid four year tuition bill along with the long list of student athlete perks? Gee...if student athletes "generate billions of dollars" for athletic depts. in NCAA member institutions, why are 86% of NCAA university and college athletic depts. consistently operating in the red, some of which require institutional funding through student fees and loans from the general fund just to break even?
Here's a rebuttal...also a very good read.
I personally disagree that the article is an "incredible piece of journalism" for a number of reasons (I assume you're referring to The Atlantic article posted by bothman, not Tipsy). Admittedly, Branch has done a good job of documenting the historical litany of key legal battles involving the NCAA. I won't take the time to analyze it in detail, but discerning minds would regard his journalistic approach as sloppy reductionism at several junctures, while lacking sufficient evidence to support some of his panoptic indictments against the NCAA to enhance his "pay for play" worldview.
For example, Branch mentions the suspension of Cam Newton in 2010 which was based upon an alleged rules violation that his father accepted a "pay for play" proposal from Miss. St. Subsequently, Newton was reinstated a day later because the NCAA found no substantive and incriminating evidence that Cam knew of or received any financial support from Miss. St. So Branch, in full reductionist regalia, uses this as a pretext to essentially dupe the reader into thinking the NCAA entered into a smoke filled room somewhere to conceal evidence and acquiesce to "public demand" to capitalize on the projected financial windfall of the SEC and BCS championship games and appease market forces. Then he quotes Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, out of context to support his lofty conjecture and further malign the NCAA. The real facts are that the NCAA was exactly right in their assessment of the situation involving Newton's reinstatement. That's not sound journalism, but more akin to the genre of a letter to the editor on any editorial page.
The obvious bias and embellishment in Branch's rhetorical rant begins in the opening abstract of the article which reads, "the real scandal is the very structure of college sports, wherein student-athletes generate billions of dollars for universities and private companies while earning nothing for themselves". They earn "nothing"?? Really?? What about the $150-200k paid four year tuition bill along with the long list of student athlete perks? Gee...if student athletes "generate billions of dollars" for athletic depts. in NCAA member institutions, why are 86% of NCAA university and college athletic depts. consistently operating in the red, some of which require institutional funding through student fees and loans from the general fund just to break even?
Here's a rebuttal...also a very good read.
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
The realities of today's $10,000,000,000+ college sports industry should disabuse fans of any quaint notions thy have about scholar athletes and amateur college sports. The O'Bannon Case is but one in a growing number of suits challenging the financial activities of the NCAA and college athletic programs. Compounding this conflict between profit and amateur sports is the rapidly evolving technology, programing, and financial structure of the electronic media, which continue to provide a growing share of the revenue for college sports programs.
In the face of these changes the courts will find it difficult to maintain the status quo of the current legal status of college athletic programs and policies. I suspect a major overhaul of college athletics finances is not far off.
The realities of today's $10,000,000,000+ college sports industry should disabuse fans of any quaint notions thy have about scholar athletes and amateur college sports. The O'Bannon Case is but one in a growing number of suits challenging the financial activities of the NCAA and college athletic programs. Compounding this conflict between profit and amateur sports is the rapidly evolving technology, programing, and financial structure of the electronic media, which continue to provide a growing share of the revenue for college sports programs.
In the face of these changes the courts will find it difficult to maintain the status quo of the current legal status of college athletic programs and policies. I suspect a major overhaul of college athletics finances is not far off.
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
But is there actual profit? While a couple sports can operate at a profit, many sports do not - and hockey at MOST places would likely to be in the category of not.
But is there actual profit? While a couple sports can operate at a profit, many sports do not - and hockey at MOST places would likely to be in the category of not.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Great article Harley, thanks for posting. It does a great job of doing what Branch failed to do, and that is look at both sides of this issue.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Problem these suits and their proponents have is the vast majority of athletic programs aren't profitable, and the profits that programs do make are used to fund the programs that aren't profitable and to provide benefits and services to the students it educates (including the athletes).
Last edited:
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
This, in my opinion, sums up the biggest legal obstacle that O'Bannon and others will have:
This, in my opinion, sums up the biggest legal obstacle that O'Bannon and others will have:
Last edited:
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Why do you insist on visiting a site dedicated to a college sport to which you're incessantly douchey toward? Youre neither enlightening nor intentionally entertaining, and don't appear to derive an ounce of enjoyment from your efforts.
You're warm with negativity,
Yes, comfort is an energy,...
But why let the sad song play?
I have faced it,... A life wasted,...
I'm never going back again.
I escaped it,... A life wasted,...
I'm never going back again.
Having tasted,... A life wasted,...
I'm never going back again.
Oh I erased it,... A life wasted,...
I'm never going back again.
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
Slap Shot:
I have read the articles and posts about the O'Bannon case with interest and added my observations. Corrections of faulty facts and opinions are appreciated, for they interesting and enlightening. However, I'm not particularly interested in your personal opinion of me - or of anyone else, for that matter. Chill.
Slap Shot:
I have read the articles and posts about the O'Bannon case with interest and added my observations. Corrections of faulty facts and opinions are appreciated, for they interesting and enlightening. However, I'm not particularly interested in your personal opinion of me - or of anyone else, for that matter. Chill.
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
Incorrect. The market value for the players services isn't zero because they aren't restricted to the NBA. If these players were able to negotiate with the universities for a GUARANTEED scholarship and for other cash or perks on top of that, that would be a free market. The schools have rigged the game by all offering the same deal to the players.
If the universities are in the education business, at the very least they should be willing to let players negotiate the best possible scholarship guarantee they can get. But they aren't even willing to do that.
Last edited:
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Im chilled. Youre the one that visits a website dedicated to a sport for which you offer nothing but scorn.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
They have every right to play professionally whenever and wherever they want. No one is forcing them to play in the NCAA. Obviously the ARE getting something of great value from schools because they are willing to forego these other options and play NCAA.
I don't deny that the system is in need of some changes, and it wouldn't be detrimental in my opinion to allow student athletes to negotiate scholarship guarantees. I don't think these athletes are getting abused though.
Last edited:
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
Okay, now let's just push that idea a little further. Andrew Wiggins is the big recruit for next year. Let's say that there is a free marketplace that enables colleges to bid against each other. If Kentucky is willing to pay him 50k in addition to a scholarship and Michigan is willing to pay 60k in addition to a scholarship, what is wrong with that? If no school thinks their budget allows for that, they don't have to offer any extra money. In addition, any non-revenue sports would have to offer any extra money because there would be little competition. No one is demanding profit sharing, just a true market for services.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
If schools are forced to start paying a small group of student athletes that type of money, that is money that won't go to continuing to operate the non-revenue sports that enrich a far larger group of student's collegiate experiences. Even worse, it's money that the university wouldn't have to enrich the educational experience of all it's students.
You're worried about a small group of student athletes that are getting a free education, free room and board, access to world-class facilities, etc.. and viewing them as victims, but you aren't giving a moment's thought to the impact on a far larger group of student athletes and students as a whole.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
It's pretty simple.
If you're an athlete who doesn't value a free education and room and board, the world class facilities, coaching, and free exposure, then turn pro right away and practice your trade elsewhere.
The fact that these kids DO choose to play in the NCAA instead of doing that leads me to believe they DO receive value from playing in the NCAA.
The fact that a small group of these athletes that go on to make millions after school are trying to squeeze some money out of their school without taking into account the costs the schools incurred to educate and train them, or the other student athletes and students at their university, nauseates me.
It's pretty simple.
If you're an athlete who doesn't value a free education and room and board, the world class facilities, coaching, and free exposure, then turn pro right away and practice your trade elsewhere.
The fact that these kids DO choose to play in the NCAA instead of doing that leads me to believe they DO receive value from playing in the NCAA.
The fact that a small group of these athletes that go on to make millions after school are trying to squeeze some money out of their school without taking into account the costs the schools incurred to educate and train them, or the other student athletes and students at their university, nauseates me.
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
"The laborer is worthy of his hire." Luke 10:7
Why would this not apply to college athletes? The college athlete certainly serves in his or her own perceived self interest in participating college sports, but it's a fact that the efforts of college athletes result in billions of dollars of revenue for colleges, and colleges have agreed among themselves to strictly limit the financial benefits young athletes (minors) receive for their labors.
"Do not muzzle the ox while he is treading grain." - I Timothy 5:18 / I Corinthians 9:9 / Deuteronomy 25:4
The conflict between services provided and equitable compensation for them is an old one and has not changed much. The reasoned response of religion to this conflict is just as old and hasn't changed either. The excuses why labor doesn't deserve compensation commensurate with its results haven't changed much nor have they gained much validity that I can see.
"The laborer is worthy of his hire." Luke 10:7
Why would this not apply to college athletes? The college athlete certainly serves in his or her own perceived self interest in participating college sports, but it's a fact that the efforts of college athletes result in billions of dollars of revenue for colleges, and colleges have agreed among themselves to strictly limit the financial benefits young athletes (minors) receive for their labors.
"Do not muzzle the ox while he is treading grain." - I Timothy 5:18 / I Corinthians 9:9 / Deuteronomy 25:4
The conflict between services provided and equitable compensation for them is an old one and has not changed much. The reasoned response of religion to this conflict is just as old and hasn't changed either. The excuses why labor doesn't deserve compensation commensurate with its results haven't changed much nor have they gained much validity that I can see.
Last edited: