Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

[filbert]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I sense the incipient advent of smack on this thread.

Pre-emptive warning to all. Moody filbert is moody and mood is not sparkly this week.

[slosho]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I sense the incipient advent of smack on this thread.

Pre-emptive warning to all. Moody filbert is moody and mood is not sparkly this week.

Lets hope another SDSU FOOTBALL win can turn that Frown UP-side-DOWN

[SDSUSmitty]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

Some new news on compensating athletes.... http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/fresh...6185d5a4eab93c

[propar80]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

JackJD...does this put a hold on COA for now?? Please say yes...please say yes! I'm assuming that the "other party" can now appeal this decision?? Please say no...please say no!;-)

[Nidaros]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I too am anxious to read JackJD take on this. The article says this justice was from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. My guess filing an appeal would be expensive. The original suit was filed by 9 former athletes who might not want to mess with an appeal. Just guessing here I could be dead wrong.

[BTownJack]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I think this just puts a hold on paying student athletes above the COA (the $5000 the article references). I'm afraid the COA is here to stay as the NCAA approved it back in January. That is my take on it anyways.

[Nidaros]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

The US Court of Appeals say it violates anti trust laws. So the fact the NCAA passed a resolution is immaterial.

[JackJD]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I haven't read the opinion. If I had to guess based on what little I've picked from media reports etc. I'd say this does not impact COA. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision which had mandated paying athletes $5000 a year as revenue sharing for what they contributed to schools making lots of money.

i will read the opinion.

[joeboo22]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I haven't read the whole opinion, but reading the exerts of it it sounds like just giving $5000 cash will not be allowed.

The way I interpreted it was you can't just say $5,000 COA and hand them a $5,000 check, because they view that as crossing the line with amateurism/professional debate.

More of a plan from each school would be needed to determine the maximum they can give. (because $5000 could go further than other places)

[JackJD]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

Here's a link to the actual opinion.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000757

[JackJD]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

The opinion in O'Bannon v. NCAA, (remember the O'Bannon boys -- brothers who played for UCLA -- or, were they the bad guys who beat up Brad Pitt -- even killed his girlfriend by an errant rifle ricochet -- over a dispute on who had right to distribute alcohol in the movie Legends of the Fall; AND as long as I am digressing, does anyone else think our All-America Wide Receiver Weineke looks like he could be Brad Pitt's younger brother?) starts with a Summary -- the Summary is not a part of the opinion but was prepared by court personnel and is generally what the name suggests: a bare summary of the opinion. The entire opinion runs about 70 pages. Here's the summary that you can read for yourself. I've put in bold type a few high points. [Note: I cut the summary from the opinion and pasted it into a Word doc and then copied the Word doc below...when I do that, some formatting errors occur, notably some spaces between words disappear. I think I've cleaned up most of those but a few may remain.]

SUMMARY

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the districtcourt’s judgment after a bench trial in an antitrust suit regarding the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s rules prohibiting student-athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses. The district court held that the NCAA’s amateurism rules were an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The district court permanently enjoined the NCAA from prohibiting its member schools from giving student-athletes scholarships up to the fullcost of attendance at their respective schools and up to $5,000 per year indeferred compensation, to be held in trust for student athletes after they leave college.

The panel held that it was not precluded from reaching the merits of plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claim because: (1) the Supreme Court did not hold in NCAA v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85 (1984), that theNCAA’s amateurism rules are valid as a matter of law; (2) the rules are subject to the Sherman Act because they regulate commercial activity; and (3) the plaintiffs established that they suffered injury in fact, and therefore had standing, by showing that, absent the NCAA’s rules, video game makers wouldlikely pay them for the right to use their names, images, and likenesses in college sports video games.

The panel held that even though many of the NCAA’s rules were likely to be procompetitive, they were not exempt from antitrust scrutiny and must be analyzed under the Rule of Reason. Applying the Rule of Reason, the panel held that the NCAA’s rules had significant anticompetitive effects withinthe college education market, in that they fixed an aspect of the “price” thatrecruits pay to attend college. The record supported the district court’s finding that the rulesserved the procompetitive purposes of integrating academics with athletics andpreserving the popularity of the NCAA’s product by promoting its current understanding of amateurism. The panel concluded that the district court identified one proper less restrictive alternative to the current NCAA rules¯i.e.,allowing NCAA member to give scholarships up to the full cost of attendance¯but the district court’s other remedy, allowing students to be paid cash compensation of up to $5,000 per year, was erroneous. The panel vacated the district court’s judgment and permanent injunction insofar as they required the NCAA to allow its member schools to pay student-athletes up to $5,000 per year in deferred compensation.

Chief Judge Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.He disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the district court clearly erred in ordering the NCAA to permit up to $5,000 in deferred compensation above student-athletes’ full cost of attendance.

[BTownJack]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

Here is an article explaining the recent decision in easier to understand fashion. Basically COA is allowed but not required to be paid by schools. This ruling shoots down the idea that schools have to set aside up to $5000 each year the student-athlete is academically eligible. To be paid out when they leave school.

ARTICLE HERE via Washington Post

[Nidaros]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

It's all clear as mud! How this affects the SL and MVFC is that there will be a bidding war for the cream of the crop athletes. I still am not panicking. The anti-trust angle is very interesting. We have not had the athletes with stature or well known enough that could be used in endorsements etc. so that might not be an issue except for athletes maybe like ZZ and Nate Wolters who never did any endorsements while still in enrolled at SDSU.

Interesting.

[WestSideRabbit]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

St. Cloud State announced they will be doing cost of attendance according to KSFY news last night. I know they have Division 1 Hockey but this is interesting for a school and system (MNSCU) that is bleeding money and seeing huge enrollment drops.

Edit: looks like they just plan to cover men's and women's hockey. The article is interesting because it shows the budget shortfall. This is insane.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/0...sts-in-hockey/

[mango4]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

St. Cloud State announced they will be doing cost of attendance according to KSFY news last night. I know they have Division 1 Hockey but this is interesting for a school and system (MNSCU) that is bleeding money and seeing huge enrollment drops.

Considering they were thinking about cutting football five years ago because they had no money for it, this is an interesting decision

http://www.minnpost.com/political-ag...otball-program