Turn Off Ads?
Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 10161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 433

Thread: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

  1. #286
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,567

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston Red View Post
    If you need a masters to get into law school, then someone forgot to tell my law school.

    On the second point, there is a glut of lawyers out there. The LAST thing we have is a small supply of attorneys with high demand for their services.
    Sorry it was late and I was drousy. I meant to say Bachelor's lol

    There are a lot of people with law degrees, but most have an individual focus. In a lot of areas of the country, there isn't a good selection of any one area of law.
    Last edited by Brutus; 09-27-2013 at 02:40 PM.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #287
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,854

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    High school sports are a lot cheaper than college sports. They take buses across town. College sports take flights across the country.

    If a school has no profitable sports teams, then they shouldn't have sports. If the physics department were losing money hand over foot to run, they would cut the physics department. For some reason in sports it is ok to just lose millions of dollars a year, you know, for the good of the morale.

    The #1 goal of a school is to educate. You can educate without sports.
    A few comments:

    * The schools that have no profitable sports teams and the schools flying across the country aren't the same schools. The ones I'm thinking about offer partial scholarships, practice at a local high school and drive 15-passenger vans to their away games.

    * Because "the #1 goal of a school is to educate," universities offer all kinds of programs that lose money in the final accounting because it's difficult to be taken seriously without them. Good luck finding schools that don't have a physics program, but I'm guessing that's not a profit center at most.

    * Nonetheless, you're absolutely right about this -- athletics should not be sucking huge amounts of money out of the school that could be spent on academics instead. Most schools are willing to spend some money under the guise of "campus life," which covers an entire gamut of "things that prospective students expect a university to have but would be difficult to cost-justify on their own merits." That, I can live with.
    Not all who wander are lost

  4. #288
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Braintree, MA
    Posts
    2,085

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    OK, now THIS is a little insane: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-...93--ncaaf.html


    New Mexico State obviously cannot pay its players, but it is offering cash prizes to students to just go watch their team play.

  5. #289
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    592

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    * Nonetheless, you're absolutely right about this -- athletics should not be sucking huge amounts of money out of the school that could be spent on academics instead. Most schools are willing to spend some money under the guise of "campus life," which covers an entire gamut of "things that prospective students expect a university to have but would be difficult to cost-justify on their own merits." That, I can live with.
    A large portion (and growing) of a school's contribution is through general student fees, which by and large doesn't reconcile with student interest and attendance at most colleges. That's a major problem.

  6. #290
    Hisssssssss Yachtzee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Land of the Lost
    Posts
    7,258

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    The purpose of an intern is not free labor. It's supposed to be used to educate only. Federal labor laws are very clear that the purpose of an internship should be of no benefit to an employer and law firms using desperate students for free labor is, ironically, a clear cut violation of the very law they seek to uphold.

    The problem you mention is that the system is set up for the poor and uneducated to be ignorant and at a disadvantage. The whole system of law is, quite honestly, a sham. The government forces people to be "licensed" to practice law. You need to pass the bar to be licensed. You need a doctorate (usually) to take the bar. You need a master's to get into law school. People should be able to hire anyone they trust to represent them in a court of law. Instead, the government has created a situation where there is a small supply of attorneys that can jack up their rates because of the high demand. Thus, you have desperate graduates that are eager to find a job at a firm where they can make partner at some point down the road, so they are forced to play by the attorney's wicked game of being servants all in the name of "internships."

    If this were about helping the poor, the needy and the ignorant in law, the government would stop telling people who can and cannot practice their preferred profession and let each individual decide who to put their trust and faith in when it comes to defending them. However, it's not about that; lawyers were able to draft legislation and a system where lawyers are rewarded. Imagine that. Once upon a time, statutory construction was to favor the lay-man and said everyday citizen was encouraged to understand the laws. Now, drafters are manipulating the language to confuse the masses and keep them intimidated from performing their civic duty of understanding the basic tenets of law. Those that stay informed can avoid this wicked game, but most people don't know better.

    Bottom line is internships are helpful if they're used for the real purpose: training. But relying on free labor is not the purpose of an internship.
    There are so many misperceptions about the legal field here I don't even know where to begin. The real legal field isn't all Law and Order or Boston Legal or LA Law. Most lawyers don't work in bright shiny offices making money hand over fist. If you're ever in the Northeast Ohio area, I'd be happy to have you come along with me to court so you could see how things really are. It might be pretty interesting too, since I have a fairly heavy docket and spend most of my day actually in court.

    I would note that there are some states that still allow you to "read the law," meaning you can take the bar exam without going to law school if you meet certain conditions, like apprenticing under a judge or lawyer for a cerain period of time. As far as the bar exam goes, states need some way to determine whether someone is fit to practice. Why? Because, just like doctors and nurses, we can be sued for malpractice if we screw up. If you want to represent yourself, you're free to do so though.
    Burn down the disco. Hang the blessed DJ. Because the music that he constantly plays, it says nothing to me about my life.

  7. #291
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,444

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Former players get $40M from EA Sports for likeness rights from video games. Doesn't work out much for each player since there were 200-300,000 in the lawsuit, but I am still glad to see that someone had to fork up some money.

  8. #292
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,567

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Yachtzee View Post
    There are so many misperceptions about the legal field here I don't even know where to begin. The real legal field isn't all Law and Order or Boston Legal or LA Law. Most lawyers don't work in bright shiny offices making money hand over fist. If you're ever in the Northeast Ohio area, I'd be happy to have you come along with me to court so you could see how things really are. It might be pretty interesting too, since I have a fairly heavy docket and spend most of my day actually in court.

    I would note that there are some states that still allow you to "read the law," meaning you can take the bar exam without going to law school if you meet certain conditions, like apprenticing under a judge or lawyer for a cerain period of time. As far as the bar exam goes, states need some way to determine whether someone is fit to practice. Why? Because, just like doctors and nurses, we can be sued for malpractice if we screw up. If you want to represent yourself, you're free to do so though.
    No there are no misconceptions. I'm not pulling this out of thin air or based on what I watch on television. You yourself acknowledged a lot of people can't afford attorneys. Why? Because let's be honest: most rates are ridiculous. That wouldn't be true for public defenders like yourself, but it's very true for most private practices.

    I remember a long while back, against my better judgment, I hired a contract attorney when I was about to sign a contractor agreement in my profession. It was against my better judgment because, as I customarily do, I did my own research and knew the law of what I was signing. I wound up paying $800 for two hours of his time, all to tell me what I already knew. It was a momentary lapse in judgment because I always represent myself in civil and legal matters and have a spotless record in doing so. It's really nothing more than, contrary to your suggestion, understanding our our legal structure operates and having a correct perception about it. The whole system is built to favor the attorneys and to keep the citizens ignorant of the law. They've made the laws so convoluted, the average citizen is too intimidated by the code to dare represent themselves.

    To be clear, I have nothing against attorneys; nor do I have anything against attorneys making a good living. However, attorneys helped create the legal system we have now; attorneys draft the legislation that attorneys and our system of law uses today; attorneys set their own rates; attorneys made it so only licensed attorneys could practice law; so when I hear attorneys complaining that the system is unfair to the everyday American because they can't afford representation, well, I'm a little taken back by that.

    Funny thing is, you talk about malpractice, but let's be honest... malpractice is mostly something that attorneys created to drum up more business for themselves--opportunistic ambulance chasers. If the government didn't dictate who can and cannot practice law and dictate how to do so, there'd be a lot less grounds for malpractice. I don't have an issue with requiring people to pass a bar exam, necessarily, but if someone could do so without having to go through eight years of schooling, then more power to them. If memory serves me correctly, only about half a dozen states actually allow for reading the law, but like you said, you still have to put in a lot of time to do so.

    In any event, to go back to your original comment: relying on any kind of intern as a matter of free labor is absolutely against a violation of the FLSA. The purpose of unpaid internships is supposed to be for the educational training you'd get in schools but to see it done on the job. To rely on interns in order to do work that would otherwise be done as en employee is a big no-no.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  9. #293
    Member Wonderful Monds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,692

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Title IX is the reason it won't happen. Title IX is a joke though. Schools are businesses. In other businesses, portions of their business that lose money hand over foot (like nearly every womans sport at every school in the country along with most mens sports at most schools) would be eliminated. But there is a law in this case to make it "fair".

    Texas Tech can't pay that. So what? The guys playing football at Northwestern are getting a much larger "payment" than the guys playing at Western Kentucky.

    Set it up so the players get paid X% of whatever the football program profits. It would look just like it does now. The best players would go to the biggest schools.
    This sentiment is infuriating. Title IX is anything but a "joke".
    They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Schuler View Post
    He has also taught me that even when the Reds win it is important to focus on the fact that they could have lost.

  10. #294
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,567

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds View Post
    This sentiment is infuriating. Title IX is anything but a "joke".
    The spirit behind it is commendable but its application is, indeed, a joke.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  11. #295
    Hisssssssss Yachtzee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Land of the Lost
    Posts
    7,258

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    No there are no misconceptions. I'm not pulling this out of thin air or based on what I watch on television. You yourself acknowledged a lot of people can't afford attorneys. Why? Because let's be honest: most rates are ridiculous. That wouldn't be true for public defenders like yourself, but it's very true for most private practices.

    I remember a long while back, against my better judgment, I hired a contract attorney when I was about to sign a contractor agreement in my profession. It was against my better judgment because, as I customarily do, I did my own research and knew the law of what I was signing. I wound up paying $800 for two hours of his time, all to tell me what I already knew. It was a momentary lapse in judgment because I always represent myself in civil and legal matters and have a spotless record in doing so. It's really nothing more than, contrary to your suggestion, understanding our our legal structure operates and having a correct perception about it. The whole system is built to favor the attorneys and to keep the citizens ignorant of the law. They've made the laws so convoluted, the average citizen is too intimidated by the code to dare represent themselves.

    To be clear, I have nothing against attorneys; nor do I have anything against attorneys making a good living. However, attorneys helped create the legal system we have now; attorneys draft the legislation that attorneys and our system of law uses today; attorneys set their own rates; attorneys made it so only licensed attorneys could practice law; so when I hear attorneys complaining that the system is unfair to the everyday American because they can't afford representation, well, I'm a little taken back by that.

    Funny thing is, you talk about malpractice, but let's be honest... malpractice is mostly something that attorneys created to drum up more business for themselves--opportunistic ambulance chasers. If the government didn't dictate who can and cannot practice law and dictate how to do so, there'd be a lot less grounds for malpractice. I don't have an issue with requiring people to pass a bar exam, necessarily, but if someone could do so without having to go through eight years of schooling, then more power to them. If memory serves me correctly, only about half a dozen states actually allow for reading the law, but like you said, you still have to put in a lot of time to do so.

    In any event, to go back to your original comment: relying on any kind of intern as a matter of free labor is absolutely against a violation of the FLSA. The purpose of unpaid internships is supposed to be for the educational training you'd get in schools but to see it done on the job. To rely on interns in order to do work that would otherwise be done as en employee is a big no-no.
    Sorry to hear you didn't feel you got your money's worth from your attorney. I can't really speak to your experience because I'm not a contract lawyer and I have no idea what the going rate is. But I can tell you that, contrary to your belief, many states have been actually working to simplify the law in many areas. The reason why law is so complex and confusing isn't because a bunch of lawyers got together and decided to stick it to the common man. It's because we inherited a common law-based system from the English that developed over centuries of rulings. Many of these rulings could be downright strange and written in a language that confuse even those well educated in English. Ask any lawyer about the Rule Against Perpetuities and you'll hear a lot of groans. Most states have been moving toward adopting Model Codes in many areas of law to make laws clear and easy to understand, removing the need for people to understand some of the more arcane rulings of common law. In fact, my law school professors spoke adamantly against using "legalese" in favor of being clear and concise in our writing.

    The thing about interns is that most internships are highly educational. I had both paying and non-paying gigs in law school, paid to work for a city law department while also volunteering at the New Business Legal Clinic at my law school. At both, I was able to learn how to apply legal research and analysis to real world situations, something I wouldn't have learned in class dealing only with hypotheticals. I actually found the volunteer work highly rewarding, as I was able to help people in very cash strapped situations set up their own businesses in order to help realize their dreams.

    Back to the original topic, the news I've been hearing about EA Sports reaching a settlement with former players, I think that's a fair resolution. I do think there's a line to be drawn as far as how universities can use players' names and likenesses for promotional purposes, and I think selling those names and likenesses for use in video games crosses that line. It's one thing to use images of current players in promotional materials for the current season. It's another to sell them to video game companies, who can use those likenesses in future games. Most schools from pre-k to college ask students and parents to sign a form allowing the school to use the students' likeness in promotional materials. But signing that form shouldn't mean signing away the rights to your name and image in perpetuity, for any purpose the school deems fit.
    Burn down the disco. Hang the blessed DJ. Because the music that he constantly plays, it says nothing to me about my life.

  12. #296
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,444

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds View Post
    This sentiment is infuriating. Title IX is anything but a "joke".
    The sentiment that a business must purposefully keep womens sports alive that lose money hand over fist because they also want to have a mens football team is absolutely a joke.

    I stand firm by "if your sport can't support itself via ticket sales/donations/other revenue sources directly related to your sport (IE: Not taking money from the sports that do turn a profit), then your sport shouldn't exist" theory. But that can't happen since the NCAA regulates that if you play D-I in the money generating sports (Basketball-Football) you must have at least 14 teams/16-teams, with at least half of those being womens sports. Womens basketball is the biggest money generator for womens sports. One team in the entire country can support itself in womens college basketball. One. More than 50% of mens basketball and football teams can support themselves, but because of non-revenue sports, only 15-25 schools per year actually come out in the positive for their entire athletic budget because of how much money the other sports lose.

    Title IX is at blame. The NCAA is at blame for setting it up so you must have X number of athletic programs to participate in basketball and football, where just about every other sport you have is going to lose money.

  13. #297
    Member Wonderful Monds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,692

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    The sentiment that a business must purposefully keep womens sports alive that lose money hand over fist because they also want to have a mens football team is absolutely a joke.

    I stand firm by "if your sport can't support itself via ticket sales/donations/other revenue sources directly related to your sport (IE: Not taking money from the sports that do turn a profit), then your sport shouldn't exist" theory. But that can't happen since the NCAA regulates that if you play D-I in the money generating sports (Basketball-Football) you must have at least 14 teams/16-teams, with at least half of those being womens sports. Womens basketball is the biggest money generator for womens sports. One team in the entire country can support itself in womens college basketball. One. More than 50% of mens basketball and football teams can support themselves, but because of non-revenue sports, only 15-25 schools per year actually come out in the positive for their entire athletic budget because of how much money the other sports lose.

    Title IX is at blame. The NCAA is at blame for setting it up so you must have X number of athletic programs to participate in basketball and football, where just about every other sport you have is going to lose money.
    And they seem to be doing just fine. The future NFL players getting "screwed" by the current system can wait a couple years before they get their millions. They'll live. I'm DEFINITELY not going get on board with ruining the system that currently benefits everybody just to pay future millionaires a year or two early. THAT is what is truly absurd.

    BTW a college isn't a business and repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it so.
    They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Schuler View Post
    He has also taught me that even when the Reds win it is important to focus on the fact that they could have lost.

  14. #298
    Hisssssssss Yachtzee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Land of the Lost
    Posts
    7,258

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    The sentiment that a business must purposefully keep womens sports alive that lose money hand over fist because they also want to have a mens football team is absolutely a joke.

    I stand firm by "if your sport can't support itself via ticket sales/donations/other revenue sources directly related to your sport (IE: Not taking money from the sports that do turn a profit), then your sport shouldn't exist" theory. But that can't happen since the NCAA regulates that if you play D-I in the money generating sports (Basketball-Football) you must have at least 14 teams/16-teams, with at least half of those being womens sports. Womens basketball is the biggest money generator for womens sports. One team in the entire country can support itself in womens college basketball. One. More than 50% of mens basketball and football teams can support themselves, but because of non-revenue sports, only 15-25 schools per year actually come out in the positive for their entire athletic budget because of how much money the other sports lose.

    Title IX is at blame. The NCAA is at blame for setting it up so you must have X number of athletic programs to participate in basketball and football, where just about every other sport you have is going to lose money.
    Last I checked, universities weren't businesses, but rather non-profit educational institutions. If you want to tell universities to get rid of certain sports, you'd have a better shot at getting rid of the football and basketball programs. That would be more in line with their non-profit mission. There are for-profit educational institutions, but I don't think anyone wants universities to act more like the ITT Techs and Strayer Universities of the world.
    Last edited by Yachtzee; 09-28-2013 at 12:50 PM.
    Burn down the disco. Hang the blessed DJ. Because the music that he constantly plays, it says nothing to me about my life.

  15. #299
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,444

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Yachtzee View Post
    Last I checked, universities weren't businesses, but rather non-profit educational institutions. If you want to tell universities to get rid of certain sports, you'd have a better shot at getting rid of the football and basketball programs. That would be more in line with their non-profit mission. There are for-profit educational institutions, but I don't think anyone wants universities to act more like the ITT Techs and Strayer Universities of the world.
    Non-profit doesn't mean you aren't a business. They are charging money for a product. They are a business.

  16. #300
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,444

    Re: O'Bannon v. NCAA (aka Could Ohio State go D3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds View Post
    And they seem to be doing just fine. The future NFL players getting "screwed" by the current system can wait a couple years before they get their millions. They'll live. I'm DEFINITELY not going get on board with ruining the system that currently benefits everybody just to pay future millionaires a year or two early. THAT is what is truly absurd.

    BTW a college isn't a business and repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it so.
    Yes, because all stars in college football and basketball go on to make the NBA and NFL.....


    And yes, a college is a business. They are operating with hundreds or millions to billions of dollars with thousands of employees that sell products to consumers. Not turning a profit (while they have millions to billions sitting in wait for a rainy day) doesn't mean that you aren't operating a business. If they stopped charging for their products and paying employees, then they would cease to be a business. Until then, they are operating as a business.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25