UNT QB Derek Thompson is named Plantiff in new NCAA lawsuit?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I can't find the text of the case online, so I don't know what type of price fixing is being alleged. In general terms, price fixing is an agreement among competitors to price a product or service at a certain level.

And, it is not always illegal.

It is easier for me to see an antitrust lawsuit where universities are the plaintiffs, but not the players. For instance, as had been argued by the University of Utah, the BCS was alleged to be a illegal because a certain body of schools prevents other schools from competing in certain bowls.

In antitrust you have markets, competitors, and consumers. In the old Utah v.BCS, the market was, theoretically, the bowl games and television contracts, the competitors were every FBS university, the consumers were the fans/general public.

The question comes down to whether the cartel fixing the price (or contracts or what have you) has done so in such a way that consumers are damaged. In some cases, price fixing can lead to efficiency or lower prices or some other public good, and so they are deemed legal.

Because economics are always in play, there also has to be some proof of demand. For instance, throughout the years, various soft drink producers have sought to sue Coca-Cola and on antitrust ground due to the amount of shelf space given them in grocery stores.

These suits fail because there is no proof in the market that the demand for, say, Peach Nehi, is such that it should be given equal shelf space with Coca-Cola and Pepsi. In other words, courts recognize that we live in a free market, capitalistic society. And, therefore, if you manufacture a product, you are expected to compete for your place within a market.

Imagine what would happen if Nehi v. Coca-Cola/Pepsi suits were allowed to succeed - where is the end? If I manufacture a soda pop in my garage, all I would have to do is go to a grocer with the Nehi v. Coca-Cola/Pepsi result and say, "Give me my shelf space!"

Edited August 12, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I cannot for the life of me see a player versus NCAA antitrust suit based upon grants-in-aid, such as this one. However, I could also not see players - whose books, tuition, living, and board were provided to them at no charge - being given status as employees.

However, you have to take into account that the judiciary in America has changed over the past two decades. The courts now have more Clinton/Obama appointees than Bush appointees. Those "more liberal" judges are more apt to sweep aside (or, not understand) the economic issues at play when making their rulings. Therefore, these types of cases - on the heels of the video game and player-employee cases - are as likely to succeed as they are fail.

Politics have successfully wormed into professional athletics and are now cracking into amateur athletics. And, as politics destroy whole cities, such as Detroit, by attempting to make every action a political zero-sum game, athletics up and down the line will become the same in our lifetime. It has already been seen over the past three decades with Title IX wiping out whole men's athletics programs such as wrestling and soccer.

Edited August 12, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[Green P1]

The fact that scholarship athletes don't end their careers with 30k or more in crippling student loans is a big factor that I don't think enough people take into account.

That being said... If you wanna give them a salary equal to about a minimum wage job during their time in school... Why not?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

The bottom line is, courts hold the power to determine what is and what is not legal. Precedent can mean nothing; and, these days, it means less and less.

When a customer ask me what their insurance policy covers, I tell them, "It covers what it says it covers...or, what a court of law says it covers." It can, and is, either and both at the same time.

Such is risk management: finance, economics, law. No element is really within your complete control. And, so...insurance. And, insurance evolves right along with finance, economics, and law. For better or worse, they all evolve.

College athletics is evolving. For better or worse?

Fags.

[Eastwood Eagle]

I don't know. Maybe Brett can get to the bottom of this. Very strange news.

How is it strange that a person would want money for their services?

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it certainly is not strange that players would opt in to a class action or agree with the merits.

[MeanGreenTexan]

I think it should be a revenue sharing deal. The money the football team brings in above expenses should be divided evenly among the players. I'm torn as to whether is should go to all players, scholarship players, or just players that saw the field.

Women's soccer should do the same and if the program loses money, no stipend and their scholarships are just a cost of doing business.

My problem is not with scholarships not being valuable enough compensation. My problem is with entities like ESPN and people like Steve Patterson commercializing the sport to the point of insanity. If these folks weren't trying to cash in on their cheap, no-compete, labor, I wouldn't be on DT's side in this.

It's definitely a solution. I mean, communism has worked well everywhere else...

But! Be ready for some major bellyaching. Think Marcus Mariotta, the preseason Heisman favorite, should be paid the same as his backup? I bet he doesn't think so. Oregon is going to be selling a ton of #8 jerseys (in a multitude of colors/styles!).

[Stan R]

The bottom line is, courts hold the power to determine what is and what is not legal. Precedent can mean nothing; and, these days, it means less and less.

When a customer ask me what their insurance policy covers, I tell them, "It covers what it says it covers...or, what a court of law says it covers." It can, and is, either and both at the same time.

Such is risk management: finance, economics, law. No element is really within your complete control. And, so...insurance. And, insurance evolves right along with finance, economics, and law. For better or worse, they all evolve.

College athletics is evolving. For better or worse?

Humans.

That's because we're humans and we can change our minds. Shocking. Stuff written down on paper can be changed. EVEN STUFF TYPED INTO COMPUTERS CAN CHANGE!??!?

[UNT90]

Always amazes me to see how little value the college educated put on the degree that bettered their lives.

[Cerebus]

This thread really made someone look like a total jackass... and that someone wasn't DT.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

That's because we're humans and we can change our minds. Shocking. Stuff written down on paper can be changed. EVEN STUFF TYPED INTO COMPUTERS CAN CHANGE!??!?

Yes. And, so we shouldn't complain, then, when these change make their way into college sports, correct?

For instance, as fans and alumni of North Texas, we should applaud the fact that the Criminal 5 conferences will now be able buy players above board, with no penalty.

If you think they will not someday push for the "good old days" i.e., unlimited scholarships, you are more than kidding yourselves. The 85 scholarship limit is the last line that would keep a North Texas even marginally competitive with the OUs, Alabamas, Texas', and Notre Dames of the world.

Edited August 12, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Always amazes me to see how little value the college educated put on the degree that bettered their lives.

And, therein lies part of the hypocrisy. Most of these players are told a college education will better their lives. However, once they arrive on campus, they are steered into worthless degree programs, and work is done for them anyway.

Look at the case of Dexter Manley, the kid who couldn't read, but was given a degree by Oklahoma State. There are thousands out there like him.

Beyond that, what type of competition is a former athlete with a degree in African American Studies against a student who earns a degree in Finance or Accounting? Not much.

So, you can at least see the former athletes' argument. Although, it is a bit hypocritical seeing as so few challenged themselves or were challenged academically while having their athletic skills used by the school.

[UNT90]

And, therein lies part of the hypocrisy. Most of these players are told a college education will better their lives. However, once they arrive on campus, they are steered into worthless degree programs, and work is done for them anyway.

Look at the case of Dexter Manley, the kid who couldn't read, but was given a degree by Oklahoma State. There are thousands out there like him.

Beyond that, what type of competition is a former athlete with a degree in African American Studies against a student who earns a degree in Finance or Accounting? Not much.

So, you can at least see the former athletes' argument. Although, it is a bit hypocritical seeing as so few challenged themselves or were challenged academically while having their athletic skills used by the school.

That is their and their parent's own damn fault.

Wanna take the easy way out in life? Be prepared to be unsuccessful, no matter what you do, whether you are a college athlete or a corner dope dealer.

You got a free education. If you don't take advantage, you have no one to blame but yourself.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

That is their and their parent's own damn fault.

Wanna take the easy way out in life? Be prepared to be unsuccessful, no matter what you do, whether you are a college athlete or a corner dope dealer.

You got a free education. If you don't take advantage, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm saying it is what it is - players are told a college degree has value, then steered into worthless degree programs.

The value of college degrees these days is being debated: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-college-degree-still-worth-it

In the long run, though, what does it matter? Pumping out hundreds and thousands of kids with degrees that can't get them real jobs or prepare them for lucrative careers is what to you and me?

So, the university pays for some more of their meals. What is the real harm? Oklahoma can buy more meals for their kids than North Texas. Yes, but athletes from both schools are more likely than not earning equally uncompetitive degrees. So, what's the difference?

Let them have their meals. Let them have their short-term endorsements. Very few will have the wherewithal to save the money anyway. Look at the number of pro athletes who get into financial straits. Throwing them a few extra bucks in the ways of meals and things...meaningless in the long haul to the vast majority of them.

[Side Show Joe]

How is it strange that a person would want money for their services?

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it certainly is not strange that players would opt in to a class action or agree with the merits.

It's strange because none of us saw this coming. It's strange because I don't remember Thompson holding any other FBS offers other than North Texas. It's strange because he is the only player named in the suit. I need more information on what he wants, and why he is doing this.

If you don't think this is strange, than I find that strange too.

[GrandGreen]

Strange and sad at the same time. I don't have any idea why Thompson is involved in this, but I wonder why so many posters feel the need to denigrate the time he played here.

Sure college athletes are exploited to varying degrees, but everyone who signs anywhere should know what to expect.

[VideoEagle]

There are too many unknowns including why Derek and what are the allegations. More details about the suit are needed to form an intelligent opinion.

[GangGreen]

More details about the suit are needed to form an intelligent opinion.

We're no good at that.

[Cr1028]

Then there's more injustice. Starters and star players would eventually complain and ask why their pay wasn't increasing and why the third-string junior, who puts minimal effort towards football and is just in it for a paycheck and an education, is getting paid the same as the stars. When one is clearly more responsible for the revenue being generated.

In this case, I guess you could pay a flat fee to all players and then give extra based on the percentage games played. Star or not, the percentage of games played would alleviate the 3rd string slacker problem.

[Stan R]

This is too bizarre. I don't know how to even react to this.

[Cr1028]

I can't find the text of the case online, so I don't know what type of price fixing is being alleged. In general terms, price fixing is an agreement among competitors to price a product or service at a certain level.

And, it is not always illegal.

It is easier for me to see an antitrust lawsuit where universities are the plaintiffs, but not the players. For instance, as had been argued by the University of Utah, the BCS was alleged to be a illegal because a certain body of schools prevents other schools from competing in certain bowls.

In antitrust you have markets, competitors, and consumers. In the old Utah v.BCS, the market was, theoretically, the bowl games and television contracts, the competitors were every FBS university, the consumers were the fans/general public.

The question comes down to whether the cartel fixing the price (or contracts or what have you) has done so in such a way that consumers are damaged. In some cases, price fixing can lead to efficiency or lower prices or some other public good, and so they are deemed legal.

Because economics are always in play, there also has to be some proof of demand. For instance, throughout the years, various soft drink producers have sought to sue Coca-Cola and on antitrust ground due to the amount of shelf space given them in grocery stores.

These suits fail because there is no proof in the market that the demand for, say, Peach Nehi, is such that it should be given equal shelf space with Coca-Cola and Pepsi. In other words, courts recognize that we live in a free market, capitalistic society. And, therefore, if you manufacture a product, you are expected to compete for your place within a market.

Imagine what would happen if Nehi v. Coca-Cola/Pepsi suits were allowed to succeed - where is the end? If I manufacture a soda pop in my garage, all I would have to do is go to a grocer with the Nehi v. Coca-Cola/Pepsi result and say, "Give me my shelf space!"

In this suit I would argue that the antitrust issue is with the labor market. Graduating high school football players that have the talent to make a living by playing the sport have little to no employment opportunities other than NCAA football. Many of them do not even want the degree that we hold up as the ultimate compensation. They take piss poor degree plans because their only goal is to maintain their eligiblity long enough to enter the NFL draft. If the NFL had a minor league system, there would be no antitrust issue and this lawsuit would be worthless.

Also, if we are talking about fairness here and everyone gets the same(a degree). Is it fair to say that a UNT/Texas State degree is worth just as much as a UT/A&M degree? How about a Rice degree? Stanford?

Edited August 12, 2014 by Cr1028

[northtexassigep]

a little birdy told me he's in it with around 200 other players. Vito is helping him clear everything up because it made it look like it was only him involved.

[UNT90]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm saying it is what it is - players are told a college degree has value, then steered into worthless degree programs.

The value of college degrees these days is being debated: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-college-degree-still-worth-it

In the long run, though, what does it matter? Pumping out hundreds and thousands of kids with degrees that can't get them real jobs or prepare them for lucrative careers is what to you and me?

So, the university pays for some more of their meals. What is the real harm? Oklahoma can buy more meals for their kids than North Texas. Yes, but athletes from both schools are more likely than not earning equally uncompetitive degrees. So, what's the difference?

Let them have their meals. Let them have their short-term endorsements. Very few will have the wherewithal to save the money anyway. Look at the number of pro athletes who get into financial straits. Throwing them a few extra bucks in the ways of meals and things...meaningless in the long haul to the vast majority of them.

Except that it cracks a door that will be kicked open wide by the greed driven P35 that want everything for themselves.

It's simple human nature. And it is the beginning of the end for college football.

[UNTexas]

I do believe the players should get at least a few hundred dollars a month while school is in session for spending money because the NCAA says they cannot work. Room and board is awesome but you don't have money to go on a date, money for a movie, or a trip to McDonald's. I was fortunate money wasn't an issue. There were players that literally had zero in the bank when I played. I don't think they deserve huge payouts and for the very select few who could benefit on their likeness, that's another discussion. I doubt the lawsuits are about a little change in your pocket though.

On a side note, most people probably don't know you could opt to get a monthly check instead of room and board. At least you could in the 90s. I received $415 a month since I didn't live in the dorms. I wasn't allowed to have a job either. Mind you there were players with kids. They should allow these guys to work at night or at least offer spending money. However, like I said, these lawsuits aren't about spending money to buy a pizza.

Edited August 13, 2014 by UNTexas