re: Johnny Manziel Suspended First Half Against Rice (NOW OFFICIAL)

quote:

---

It would have added even more fuel to the O'Bannon suit and basically bankrupted the NCAA in settlements.

At least now they have a CHANCE of a smaller settlement.

At the very least, the NCAA should have allowed schools to provide an escrow that athletes can draw from once their eligibility is up.

---

It wouldn't have been relevant to O'Bannon except in the public's mind. I understand that view is the consensus of sportswriters but I don't think they understand how the legal system works. The NCAA also doesn't make much money from these things despite sportswriters saying they make a fortune. It makes next to nil (an extremely laughable amount even to the out of work home entrepreneur) from football. The people who truly make money are the networks but see below for more.

When it comes to CFB, even schools that turn profits (and there are only a handful -- fewer than 95%) put that money right back into the AD in an ever continuing arms race. The court isn't going to look at simply basketball or football teams that turn real profits. They're not even going to *solely* look at those two sports. What they're going to look at is the totality of NCAA sports which includes many sports, some none of us has heard of. Even *if* SCOTUS decides to rule favorably for O'Bannon the court will likely split the difference and decide to allow control of a player's image only years AFTER graduation while still allowing both the NCAA and Universities to use them without permission or payment.

Antitrust laws (the meat of O'Bannon and the only sound footing for suit) have exceptions. Pro sports are one exception and media (think ESPN/CBS etc.) is another. To add to the problems of the O'Bannon Case, EA has a freedom of expression defense as it's a creative endeavor. And then there's the bit about the fact monopolies aren't in and of themselves illegal but must engage in unfair enterprise (e.g price fixing, restricting consumer choice, refusing to supply a product).

But at the heart of ALL antitrust law/legal theory is enterprise and consumer protection. The notion that if you do have a monopoly then your responsibility is to ensure that you don't impair competition is also foundational.

Under the anti-trust laws that govern similar entities, the NCAA has firm ground that has been established by prior cases as well as governments and state that grant of monopolies for specific reasons. With Grant Laws/Government granted monopolies it's a-ok to establish government granted monopolies where competition is not practical or feasible and the NCAA has a good case for requesting one should the case go against them (e.g. K-12 and utility monopolies among many others fall under this category).

IOW, it's a legal area designed to cater to markets, enterprise, businesses and ensure that even in the case of a monopoly businesses are not shut out of the market as well as designed to protect consumers who buy a product from being gouged.

Finally, and this has little to do with antitrust or monopolies, it's long been held that models or subjects can sign over the rights to that particular image in perpetuity without any recourse even when they do so for free. Even those of us who go out in public, have ZERO right over the image taken -- only the photographer has rights and he or she may keep or sell it at whim.

Then there's the obvious issue that the NCAA is a non-profit ultimately controlled by multiple schools and related members and that such a suit would in the end ruin every college sport. Success would make it all but impossible to force compliance with other federal laws governing universities. The court has no reason to overturn this based on anti-trust laws unless they seriously want to diverge from more than 100+ years of anti-trust law just for shits and giggles.

TL;DR - O'Bannon ain't all it's cracked up to be by sportswriters and news writers and in fact faces a very steep climb in order to succeed.

quote:

---

Aggressor, is that your alter?

---

Don't know who that is nor do I care but by all means I give mods permission/an open invite to post our IPs (if they can or feel like doing so).

However, you're showing you're a total n00b to the SEC and the rivalries/love-hate relationships that would answer your question before you even asked it. The team I cheer for isn't concealed and our rivals are Bama with Florida coming in 2nd (although that's been dying for years since Fulmer vs. Spurrier not only made it a rivalry all on their own but were also the main attraction).

To even entertain the idea that UT fans didn't very much enjoy watching Manziel State cause Florida to squirm is absurd. To imply Vol fans don't have an interest in seeing Bama go down at the hands of Manziel and a group of total newbies to the league who'd already been whipped by UF and LSU is simply out of touch.

I respect the hell out of Bama, and when push comes to shove will unite with Bammers when it comes to TSiO as it's not just a game but the one many Bama and Vol fans live for above all others and regardless of how either team is doing. Hell I even have a begrudging respect for UF.

However, folks like yourself represent precisely why those of us who were once thrilled to have you think you've got the biggest little brother complex and annoyance factor in the SEC. Were it not for your sane and quite intelligent posters, who've earned respect and have sense enough to "act like they've been there before" even if it's a whole new world, your fanbase would be a total write-off. And I can't name another team that's even close to that status as I like them all and have good experiences with all of them although I have had a bad experience w/Vandy fans from years ago posters here have unlike you earned some respect.

Go ahead and check my posting history while you're at it and you'll see you alone (not your fanbase but YOU) are pretty much the only poster I've harshly criticized. That alone should tell you something.

I expect you'll return with yet another drive-by that makes you think you're witty. However, you're not fit to launder the jockstraps of the more intelligent A&M posters around here.

calm down, Alice.

Aggressor is one of our guys who posts novels almost every time.

There was no malice at aimed at your content of the post. I was taking a mild shot at Aggressor.

Calm down, and enjoy the season.

A&M only plays one half of football anyway. Might as well be a one game suspension.

Thank goodness it's over,and for us, we know who Bama is going to play on the 14th. The trouble is just starting for A&M. Since this kid has not been disclipined in any form, he will just do something again to get attention and bring down his school.

quote:

---

he will just do something again to get attention and bring down his school.

---

Wuh eva, wuh eva. JFF do wot he wawnt.

quote:

---

However, despite the fame and the program boost do you really think it can be argued Abby Wambach made Florida a dime

---

Actually yes. All of the money and revenue she earned Florida came AFTER she made the Olympic Team.

IIRC, professional athletes have never been allowed to recoup any money made by their school using their likeness or endorsement per NCAA rules.

Another case in point: Jeremy Bloom. He was ruled ineligible for football because of skiing.

quote:

---

This is stupid. If he's suspended, that means he's done something wrong. If he's done something wrong (signing autographs for money), he's ineligible until he returns the money and the NCAA will mandate how long his suspension is.

---

Oh God, it just struck me how absurd it is that he would have to "return" money to the NCAA as if they deserve it. Such a screwed up system.

Is this how JFF haters felt after hearing the news?