This will ruin college athletics. These players don't understand that they already get a piece of the revenue. It's called a scholarship. How do they think their scholarships are funded? If schools are forced to put money aside to pay players after they have exhausted their eligibility then schools would have to drop certain sports to cover the additional cost of maintaining a slush fund.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 1367.story

This is insane. All of a sudden college sports have become professional. Next we will have collective bargaining, salary contracts, strikes, lock outs, and other such nonsense.

This could be the end of college athletics as we know it. There are so many possible ways this can play out and none of them are good for schools like App.

Rich get richer with this.

Goodbye cross country, soccer, tennis, etc. at non P5 schools. This is terrible news for those sports.

Does this mean the larger high schools who get their games on TV with advertisements etc are going to start demanding TV revenue as well? Are the players going to say that the money made off parking, ticket sales, and TV contracts is because of how well they play on the field so the school should have to pay them for putting their teenage bodies on the line so the school can make some money?

Saint3333 wrote:Rich get richer with this.

Goodbye cross country, soccer, tennis, etc. at non P5 schools. This is terrible news for those sports.

This may actually go in reverse. It may mean goodbye football for non P5 schools.

appdaze wrote:

Saint3333 wrote:Rich get richer with this.

Goodbye cross country, soccer, tennis, etc. at non P5 schools. This is terrible news for those sports.

This may actually go in reverse. It may mean goodbye football for non P5 schools.

May be the end of scholarship football and basketball with games on TV for the G5. The P5 will be able to afford it, for the most part, although I think the Wake Forests and Iowa States of the world will struggle.

appdaze wrote:

Saint3333 wrote:Rich get richer with this.

Goodbye cross country, soccer, tennis, etc. at non P5 schools. This is terrible news for those sports.

This may actually go in reverse. It may mean goodbye football for non P5 schools.

I'm not a lawyer but could there be some sort of anti trust suit by the G5 schools. It would seem that this could put a major dent in their ability to survive. This is far from over.

A liberal woman judge from Oakland. Oh good. They are bent on destroying everything that we hold dear.
This rulung just allows the suit to go forward though. Hopefully it t succeed.

AppinATL wrote:A liberal woman judge from Oakland. Oh good. They are bent on destroying everything that we hold dear.
This rulung just allows the suit to go forward though. Hopefully it t succeed.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Sounds like the attorneys for the plaintiff knew exactly which judge and district to pick to hear the case.
Perhaps our resident liberals can explain this one.

I think the case has enough merit to move forward, though that does not mean I support it. But I do think it is important enough that it needs its day(s) in court - literally.

With the exception of a few schools that make money on sports most all are funded, and in some cases in large part, but student fees. Fees that students can't object to and are also hidden in with a few other fees to make it seem like a good deal, but in reality the fees are to fund athletics.

What I would like to see is no student fees to fund schollys or a limit of a very small amount both per student and as a percentage of total athletic budget. If the schools make some money it should go to the athletes at that point, but since schools are not making money then it is hard to give any to the athletes except on the back of other students through increased fees, which I do not agree with. Of course if the students are not paying fees they would need to pay to get into a game.

They could save some money with reduced coach's salaries and of other AD employees.

The athletics are helping revenue come into the school. But just not enough. Also I wonder how many of the athletes would be able to make enrollment were they not given special consideration separate from the general population. There are some very fine student-athletes at all schools, and there are some that are only there due to sports. There needs to be a sense of fairness for the general population student as well.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:I think the case has enough merit to move forward, though that does not mean I support it. But I do think it is important enough that it needs its day(s) in court - literally.

With the exception of a few schools that make money on sports most all are funded, and in some cases in large part, but student fees. Fees that students can't object to and are also hidden in with a few other fees to make it seem like a good deal, but in reality the fees are to fund athletics.

What I would like to see is no student fees to fund schollys or a limit of a very small amount both per student and as a percentage of total athletic budget. If the schools make some money it should go to the athletes at that point, but since schools are not making money then it is hard to give any to the athletes except on the back of other students through increased fees, which I do not agree with. Of course if the students are not paying fees they would need to pay to get into a game.

They could save some money with reduced coach's salaries and of other AD employees.

The athletics are helping revenue come into the school. But just not enough. Also I wonder how many of the athletes would be able to make enrollment were they not given special consideration separate from the general population. There are some very fine student-athletes at all schools, and there are some that are only there due to sports. There needs to be a sense of fairness for the general population student as well.

As I said a couple or so years ago, if athletes want money in addition to their tuition, room, and board, let them get Pell Grants and student loans like many of the rest of us did.

JCline0429 wrote:

AppinATL wrote:A liberal woman judge from Oakland. Oh good. They are bent on destroying everything that we hold dear.
This rulung just allows the suit to go forward though. Hopefully it t succeed.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Sounds like the attorneys for the plaintiff knew exactly which judge and district to pick to hear the case.

That happens all the time. Home states of companies make rulings that would be hard to find ruled the same way in other states. One goes where a friendly voice can be found if at all possible. It is not fair, and it proves how un-blind our justice system is, but that is how it works so I would expect a lawyer to use it to their advantage.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

JCline0429 wrote:

AppinATL wrote:A liberal woman judge from Oakland. Oh good. They are bent on destroying everything that we hold dear.
This rulung just allows the suit to go forward though. Hopefully it t succeed.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Sounds like the attorneys for the plaintiff knew exactly which judge and district to pick to hear the case.

That happens all the time. Home states of companies make rulings that would be hard to find ruled the same way in other states. One goes where a friendly voice can be found if at all possible. It is not fair, and it proves how un-blind our justice system is, but that is how it works so I would expect a lawyer to use it to their advantage.

I already knew that for the past 50 years. I was just pointing out they the attorneys did this in this instance.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

JCline0429 wrote:

AppinATL wrote:A liberal woman judge from Oakland. Oh good. They are bent on destroying everything that we hold dear.
This rulung just allows the suit to go forward though. Hopefully it t succeed.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Sounds like the attorneys for the plaintiff knew exactly which judge and district to pick to hear the case.

That happens all the time. Home states of companies make rulings that would be hard to find ruled the same way in other states. One goes where a friendly voice can be found if at all possible. It is not fair, and it proves how un-blind our justice system is, but that is how it works so I would expect a lawyer to use it to their advantage.

I already knew that for the past 50 years. I was just pointing out they the attorneys did this in this instance.

I won a monetary case in civil court primarily because my representative knew which judge to wait for.

This board has gone nuts. It drops letters and words while typing in and duplicates parts of posts. Arghhh.

JCline0429 wrote: This board has gone nuts. It drops letters and words while typing in and duplicates parts of posts. Arghhh.

You spelled Arghhh correctly. There is that at least.

Though I am getting tired of having to mute my speakers when I land here. I don't block the ads here so the owner can offset his costs and we have the board, but I am about to start up ad-blocker to see if that helps.

JCline0429 wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

JCline0429 wrote:

AppinATL wrote:A liberal woman judge from Oakland. Oh good. They are bent on destroying everything that we hold dear.
This rulung just allows the suit to go forward though. Hopefully it t succeed.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Sounds like the attorneys for the plaintiff knew exactly which judge and district to pick to hear the case.

That happens all the time. Home states of companies make rulings that would be hard to find ruled the same way in other states. One goes where a friendly voice can be found if at all possible. It is not fair, and it proves how un-blind our justice system is, but that is how it works so I would expect a lawyer to use it to their advantage.

I already knew that for the past 50 years. I was just pointing out they the attorneys did this in this instance.

I won a monetary case in civil court primarily because my representative knew which judge to wait for.

This board has gone nuts. It drops letters and words while typing in and duplicates parts of posts. Arghhh.

Its that damn liberal internet! I think its in cahoots with the government to take away our letters and words! You just wait, then next thing they'll do is try to control which words can be together and become compound words and which ones can't. Then they will try to tell us that we can't say vowel anymore because that's unfair to all the consonants out there, we have to just call them all letters. When will the insanity end!!

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:I think the case has enough merit to move forward, though that does not mean I support it. But I do think it is important enough that it needs its day(s) in court - literally.

With the exception of a few schools that make money on sports most all are funded, and in some cases in large part, but student fees. Fees that students can't object to and are also hidden in with a few other fees to make it seem like a good deal, but in reality the fees are to fund athletics.

What I would like to see is no student fees to fund schollys or a limit of a very small amount both per student and as a percentage of total athletic budget. If the schools make some money it should go to the athletes at that point, but since schools are not making money then it is hard to give any to the athletes except on the back of other students through increased fees, which I do not agree with. Of course if the students are not paying fees they would need to pay to get into a game.

They could save some money with reduced coach's salaries and of other AD employees.

The athletics are helping revenue come into the school. But just not enough. Also I wonder how many of the athletes would be able to make enrollment were they not given special consideration separate from the general population. There are some very fine student-athletes at all schools, and there are some that are only there due to sports. There needs to be a sense of fairness for the general population student as well.

If they begin to pay players I don't see how they can justify student athletic fees any longer. I think that will be the next big round of lawsuits.

appdaze wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:I think the case has enough merit to move forward, though that does not mean I support it. But I do think it is important enough that it needs its day(s) in court - literally.

With the exception of a few schools that make money on sports most all are funded, and in some cases in large part, but student fees. Fees that students can't object to and are also hidden in with a few other fees to make it seem like a good deal, but in reality the fees are to fund athletics.

What I would like to see is no student fees to fund schollys or a limit of a very small amount both per student and as a percentage of total athletic budget. If the schools make some money it should go to the athletes at that point, but since schools are not making money then it is hard to give any to the athletes except on the back of other students through increased fees, which I do not agree with. Of course if the students are not paying fees they would need to pay to get into a game.

They could save some money with reduced coach's salaries and of other AD employees.

The athletics are helping revenue come into the school. But just not enough. Also I wonder how many of the athletes would be able to make enrollment were they not given special consideration separate from the general population. There are some very fine student-athletes at all schools, and there are some that are only there due to sports. There needs to be a sense of fairness for the general population student as well.

If they begin to pay players I don't see how they can justify student athletic fees any longer. I think that will be the next big round of lawsuits.

And to be honest, I would give a small token amount to help with that more than likely.