the NCAA will soon be non-existent, new lawsuits spelling the end

[glassmanJ]

Ex-Kansas star Mario Chalmers latest to take aim at NCAA as crippling lawsuits mount despite House settlement

Chalmers v. NCAA is one of multiple lawsuits targeting the NCAA, potentially devastating the institution

www.cbssports.com

Facing a crowded convention hall last month hanging on his every word, NCAA president Charlie Baker said what the attendees at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics came to hear: The settlement in the House vs. NCAA case had "put things behind us."
Well, at least for a few weeks it turns out. A series of lawsuits that could conceivably cripple the NCAA by their sheer volume and potential damages have struck again.
Where have we heard that before?
A new antitrust lawsuit seeking ongoing NIL rights for men's basketball players from the 1997, 2008, 2011 and 2014 national champions, filed Monday, is seeking unspecified damages. It follows a similar complaint last month from the NC State national champions from 40 years ago.
The sheer scope of the actions puts those championships in a whole new light. The suit, Chalmers v. NCAA, essentially states that Kansas' Mario Chalmers' game-tying shot in the national title of the 2008 NCAA Tournament against Memphis has been hijacked for profit on the NCAA.com website.



It doesn't stop there. The Power Five and Big East are also included in the suit for using images from former stars Sherron Collins (Kansas), Jason Terry (Arizona) and Ryan Boatright (UConn). There are 16 players in all. Other names may be added.
And you thought the NCAA had achieved cost certainty with House. Ha! The association's legal liability is merely getting hitched up to a different train headed off a different cliff.
Remember, it was only six weeks ago the NCAA and its conferences agreed to that settlement, which will pay former athletes $2.7 billion in back damages over the next decade. The schools also agreed to implement revenue-sharing. When opted into, it is expected to provide as much as $22 million per year to athletes.


"If the proposed settlement is accepted, it will bind the NCAA and all the schools in D-I for the next 10 years," Baker told that same NACDA crowd last month.
He forgot the part about his organization being a courtroom piñata for just about anything these days. Meanwhile, Pandora has been tapped on the shoulder in Chalmers v. NCAA. In Greek mythology, her box was a metaphor for great misfortune.
Using a sports metaphor, it's called piling on. In this case, what's to keep any former roster of national champions from filing similar complaints? The answer is even more chilling for the NCAA. The case was filed as a class-action, which means all players from that period could be added.


"The NCAA has for decades leveraged its monopoly power to exploit student-athletes from the moment they enter college until long after they end their collegiate careers," the Chalmers complaint reads.
Similar words have been included lately in almost every antitrust action against the NCAA and Power Five. By this point, it doesn't necessarily matter if the complainants even have a case. They have the means, and anything that drains the NCAA of its financial will is significant at this point in history. The NCAA's bank statement has certainly been nicked already, having faced $61.5 million in legal expenses in fiscal year 2023, according to USA Today. Since 2014, that total is $433 million.
At what point does the membership's patience run out when the association is averaging $1.18 million in legal expenses per week? Ten years? At this rate, the NCAA will run out of money to plug all the dikes in 10 months.


You'd think the NCAA learned its lesson after O'Bannon, Alston, House and the conga line of legal entanglements that has gotten it to this point.
How could the NCAA not address this issue, especially after crowing about legal certainty in House? (It is a settlement, by the way, that has yet to be approved.) Chalmers vs. NCAA looks a lot like that O'Bannon case that started this merry-go-round 15 years ago. In both cases, plaintiffs argued the NCAA used athletes' likeness for commercial gain without the players' permission.
You'd think the first thing the NCAA has to do is remove the highlights in question. As of publish, Chalmers' game-tying shot against Memphis in the 2008 championship game can be seen on NCAA.com with an advertisement for Invesco QQQ.


As for Chalmers himself in real time, the 38-year-old former NBA veteran and Kansas hero is playing in Ice Cube's BIG3, still hitting big shots.

 

[KozmasAgain]

I am ready for them to dissolve the NCAA they have proven to bias in favor of some schools and against others. I wonder if financial reward will grow beyond the athletes because there are other college students who earn money for the universities that aren’t rewarded. These universities who get paid massive amounts of money for their research and a lot of students are a part of the research programs. This could go way beyond athletics if the right people are pushing for their rewards.

 

[2330859]

I agree, but I believe it is more about our own “wishful thinking”. We have a tendency to think of the NCAA as some stand-alone entity, but in truth it is a rather influential coalition of its members, and I am not sure the majority of the schools will allow the organization to fail.

 

[glassmanJ]

I am ready for them to dissolve the NCAA they have proven to bias in favor of some schools and against others. I wonder if financial reward will grow beyond the athletes because there are other college students who earn money for the universities that aren’t rewarded. These universities who get paid massive amounts of money for their research and a lot of students are a part of the research programs. This could go way beyond athletics if the right people are pushing for their rewards.

i am going to have to disagree with you on this point, someone correct me if i give wrong info, but on the research side of things, from my understanding, when you work for any company or institution doing R&D, whatever you discover or create is the sole property of the company that hired or is paying you, unless you signed a specific contract clause allowing it, thus it's not yours and you cannot take that knowledge and use it for gain somewhere else. the most famous example in history of this is the guy who created Post-it notes, regretfully all his work is 3M's and he only got a $30k bonus for the invention that basically made 3M billions. had he done in his garage he'd be rich, but did while at work so 3M's property.

when you create something while working for someone else, it's their property not yours so i don't see any student working for any university being able to recoup anything for their creation. the gist is they could not have created anything if not for the machines, knowledge and resources of the company/university paying them.

now on the other hand if they used the inventors NIL to advance the invention via media releases then they could get that kind of money, like the athletes now suing because their image was used to promote, but otherwise researchers get nothing and in most cases have to sign NDA's.

 

[Cardiac Red]

This is exactly why we should put our 2013 banner back up and dare them to challenge us on it..!!

 

[KozmasAgain]

I agree with you in a normal corporate setting the money for research would go to the company. The thing I am pointing out is the people working for the company is getting rewarded with a salary. The student doing the research is not getting a salary but maybe they should be.

 

[glassmanJ]

I agree with you in a normal corporate setting the money for research would go to the company. The thing I am pointing out is the people working for the company is getting rewarded with a salary. The student doing the research is not getting a salary but maybe they should be.

they are on scholarship getting books, room and tuition paid so they are compensated an unlike athletes usually no travel involved. but my guess in most cases with student research is an extension of the professors research so likely that the students themselves are not doing the actual discovery, and that whatever they come up with was already part of other research belonging to the school. i just think it would be a much harder time for a student to come up with some discovery that wasn't attached to something a professor wasn't already doing. academia is weird when ti comes to professors and research and stuff. in the 90's at Speed school, if a business called for help the professors were expected to help for free, as part of their salary. Fort knox started a program where the Industrial Engineering teachers had to drive to fort know after hours to teach classes there and if memory serves, I asked my favorite Prof about it and he said as part of the job, they were expected to do it. so can be reasoned that if the prof's were expected to do what the school told them in terms of helping local businesses, then i would imagine the school would control all intellectual property created on it's campus. and in most cases, a student would understand that and probably came to that school for the chance to work in their facilities. i just think research is a different ball game than nil and sports.

as a last note however, with research and the students, if there was a paper published on whatever discovery was made, the student i'm sure has their name added to the publication and that alone can be worth more than any monetary bonus. if you;re working in a field where research leads the way, having your name on an important paper i would imagine get's you in the door to higher levels more so than a cash bonus.

 

[KozmasAgain]

To me there is no difference than an athlete who produces on a field or student who produces in research. We know the athletes are getting everything free plus a salary but we don’t know if the student doing research is getting the same. When I went to college most of the professors who had a doctorate never came to class the student aid taught the classes.

Saying the professors who is in charge of the research should get all the rewards is like saying the Head football deserves all the rewards and not the athletes. A college football roster has 75 players on each team. Should all the players in the team be rewarded are should only the players that produce be rewarded?