DGB's Oklahoma Request is Denied

[LSU-SIU]

Technically he isn't being hired. O'Bannon ruled upon making money outside of football no? So, I'm not sure where you're getting at there.

The NCAA has already countless times said they are being compensated... so they are either employees or contractor, but state labor laws govern. I would say in my opinion, most big school big sport players are employees but its on a case by case basis. If Oklahoma didn't want him, than I see no problem... a third party should not be involved... its called collusion, blacklisting, and racketeering when the mob does it.

Governing parties are everywhere in the country from workers compensation to professional sports. Are you implying that the NFL is breaching antitrust by suspending a player for conduct? Who are they to tell the Dallas Cowboys or new Orlean saints who can or cannot play? The governing body has the power to make those choices ie the NFL, nba, etc.

The NFL has anti-trust exemption, further the players are somewhat protected by their union... which is how/why the NFL gets away with it.

My guess, over the next 2-10 years, the NCAA basically goes away... like minded schools group together... which is reviewed every 1-3 years for behavior to see if they will be allowed to stay in conference.

I see no reason for the NCAA to exist other than rules for inside the four corners of the field.

 

[MemphisCanes]

The ruling nothing directly to do with other this other than the NCAA has been found to be in violation of anti-trust law.

Anti-trust. Which includes a whole range of federal and state law covering anti-competition, collusion, blacklisting, etc.

Not sure what there is to understand, the NCAA should not be involved in the process of determining a players status for the University of Oklahoma, when the mob does it, we call it collusion and racketeering.

Technically, the NCAA is denying DGB compensation as to the stripend as defined in the O'Bannon ruling. Not sure how or why they are determining employment for 3rd parties. Oh I know its in their rules, but why? Oh because they want to collude with other to maximum profits... anti-trust comes to mind in a broad sense.

If the NCAA was setting up rules and enforcing what goes on officially between the four corners of the field... I generally don't see a problem with that... when they are operating outside of the four corners of the field, in general their actions are very suspect.

You are witnessing the end of the current NCAA.

How is the DGB situation collusion? Who is the NCAA colluding with?

Where is your precedent that says DGB is an employee?

I'm not really following you on this, I've still yet to see a cause of action that DGB has.

 

[LSU-SIU]

How is the DGB situation collusion? Who is the NCAA colluding with?

All the schools.

Where is your precedent that says DGB is an employee?

Don't need "precedent", the NCAA admitted they are being compensated... if I did this I would be sued by the State and the Federal government.

I'm not really following you on this, I've still yet to see a cause of action that DGB has.

Anti-competition, collusion, anti-trust, blacklisting, etc.

Not sure why this is so difficult, no other business can operate like this. Not even the NFL with their anti-trust exemption.

Tell you what... go hire a bunch of 18 year olds, tell them you will feed them and give them a bunk and work them... let me know when your State labor department finds out about it and that you are not paying employment, income, income taxes, ss taxes, workman's comp, unemployment ins., etc.... before they come after you.

As far as this particular topic, the schools are colluding with the NCAA to control, regulate, and stop competition.... there really isn't much to this.

There are already a whole bunch of lawsuits that are in the pipeline that go way beyond what happened in O'Bannon... if they couldn't win that... well, good luck.

 

[MemphisCanes]

All the schools.


Don't need "precedent", the NCAA admitted they are being compensated... if I did this I would be sued by the State and the Federal government.


Anti-competition, collusion, anti-trust, blacklisting, etc.

Not sure why this is so difficult, no other business can operate like this.

Tell you what... go hire a bunch of 18 years, tell them you will feed them and give them a bunk and work them... let me know when your State labor department finds out about it and that you are not paying employment, income, workman's comp, unemployment ins., etc.... before they come after you.

"Don't need precedent".

I'll use this argument next time I'm in Court and the Judge asks me why I should be granted something.

You're arguing that the NCAA colluded with all the schools in D 1-3 to disallow DGB to transfer to Oklahoma? They even colluded with Oklahoma on this?

These aren't employees, they don't get taxable compensation at this point. Your analogy doesn't make any sense. At this point, DGB has no cause of action under which to sue for being denied a transfer.

 

[LSU-SIU]

"Don't need precedent".

I'll use this argument next time I'm in Court and the Judge asks me why I should be granted something.

Black people were property based on "precedent", that "precedent" was wrong, "precedent" is not law. You are going to actually see 50 different rulings on all of this by the time its all over with... if not more.

You're arguing that the NCAA colluded with all the schools in D 1-3 to disallow DGB to transfer to Oklahoma? They even colluded with Oklahoma on this?

I am not arguing anything, its a fact, its in their rules, the mob hides their rules, still collusion.

These aren't employees, they don't get taxable compensation at this point. Your analogy doesn't make any sense. At this point, DGB has no cause of action under which to sue for being denied a transfer.

Just because you don't pay taxes does not mean you are not an employee... the national labor board disagrees with you and actually said the players were employees.

Of course, I know its on a case by case basis. Calling a dog a cat, does not change the fact that its a dog.

You should go to work with the NCAA, I find their testimony amusing and entertaining... if you are confused you should go read their testimony from the O'Bannon case where they made absolutely no sense.... they are just surprised their scam is up.

 

[MemphisCanes]

Black people were property based on "precedent", that "precedent" was wrong, "precedent" is not law. You are going to actually see 50 different rulings on all of this by the time its all over with... if not more.


I am not arguing anything, its a fact, its in their rules, the mob hides their rules, still collusion.


Just because you don't pay taxes does not mean you are not an employee... the national labor board disagrees with you and actually said the players were employees.

Of course, I know its on a case by case basis. Calling a dog a cat, does not change the fact that its a dog.

So what is DGB's cause of action? What are his money damages? let's start from the beginning, I guess.

 

[LSU-SIU]

So what is DGB's cause of action? What are his money damages? let's start from the beginning, I guess.

Well, just based on the O'Bannon decision although it will eventually be meaningless, he would be entitled to the strip-end on the back-end. Furthermore, he could also claim OK would pay him, which is there is already suits going on as to this exact thing. So, payment for his image for one year and salary for one year, plus punitive damages. Preliminary injunction is possibly but courts hate to that in contested cases.

You act like this would be something new... there are currently 30+ lawsuits already filed as to this exact or similar thing, and more are being filed.

:rock:

 

[MemphisCanes]

Well, just based on the O'Bannon decision although it will eventually be meaningless, he would be entitled to the strip-end on the back-end. Furthermore, he could also claim OK would pay him, which is there is already suits going on as to this exact thing. So, payment for his image for one year and salary for one year, punitive damages.

You act like this would be something new... there are currently 30+ lawsuits already filed as to this exact or similar thing, and more are being filed.

:rock:

And do you have some case law or statute citation to support a claim to any of this? It sounds like you're sorta just making this up as you go along.

 

[LSU-SIU]

And do you have some case law or statute citation to support a claim to any of this? It sounds like you're sorta just making this up as you go along.

Anti-trust is a series of laws at the federal and state level.. .there all kinds of victories. You can go look at the O'Bannon victory as that was just two weeks ago.

As far as damage he could also claim that due to their disallowing him to play which is anti-trust, they have or will damage his draft status, he then would have to provide proof at trial.

There is no guarantee, as a plaintiff still has to prove their case... at this point these cases are going to be 90%+ slam dunks... all they have to do is get the NCAA officials up on the stand.

Unless the schools start to act immediately there is going to be chaos in a few years. The scam is over.

 

[bamawriter]

Anti-trust is a series of laws at the federal and state level.. .there all kinds of victories. You can go look at the O'Bannon victory as that was just two weeks ago.

As far as damage he could also claim that due to their disallowing him to play which is anti-trust, they have or will damage his draft status, he then would have to provide proof at trial.

There is no guarantee, as a plaintiff still has to prove their case... at this point these cases are going to be 90%+ slam dunks... all they have to do is get the NCAA officials up on the stand.

Unless the schools start to act immediately there is going to be chaos in a few years. The scam is over.

I see what you're getting at, but Green-Beckham isn't being deprived of the compensation. He's still going to be at Oklahoma on scholarship. Missouri granted his full release. He simply can't play.

An argument based on anti-trust as an employee can only be based solely on his compensation. He's still getting the same compensation at OU whether he sees the field or not, so I don't see how he can make an anti-trust argument.

For your argument to hold water, any player who gets redshirted could file an anti-trust suit against his school. The law simply doesn't work that way.

 

[RikidyBones]

The NCAA has already countless times said they are being compensated... so they are either employees or contractor, but state labor laws govern. I would say in my opinion, most big school big sport players are employees but its on a case by case basis. If Oklahoma didn't want him, than I see no problem... a third party should not be involved... its called collusion, blacklisting, and racketeering when the mob does it.



The NFL has anti-trust exemption, further the players are somewhat protected by their union... which is how/why the NFL gets away with it.

My guess, over the next 2-10 years, the NCAA basically goes away... like minded schools group together... which is reviewed every 1-3 years for behavior to see if they will be allowed to stay in conference.

I see no reason for the NCAA to exist other than rules for inside the four corners of the field.

He's not having his compensation taken away from them and a labor chapter calling them employees does not make them employees. Here's what you have yet to do, define the losses by DGB.

 

[RikidyBones]

I see what you're getting at, but Green-Beckham isn't be deprived of the compensation. He's still going to be at Oklahoma on scholarship. Missouri granted his full release. He simply can't play.

An argument based on anti-trust as an employee can only be based solely on his compensation. He's still getting the same compensation at OU whether he sees the field or not, so I don't see how he can make an anti-trust argument.

For your argument to hold water, any player who gets redshirted could file an anti-trust suit against his school. The law simply doesn't work that way.

You beat me to it. This.

 

[RikidyBones]

Anti-trust is a series of laws at the federal and state level.. .there all kinds of victories. You can go look at the O'Bannon victory as that was just two weeks ago.

As far as damage he could also claim that due to their disallowing him to play which is anti-trust, they have or will damage his draft status, he then would have to provide proof at trial.

There is no guarantee, as a plaintiff still has to prove their case... at this point these cases are going to be 90%+ slam dunks... all they have to do is get the NCAA officials up on the stand.

Unless the schools start to act immediately there is going to be chaos in a few years. The scam is over.

That's a near impossible thing to prove as he has another year to play. That won't hold a damn. NFL teams could easily cite red flags on character. You're chasing big foot here.

 

[BeecherVol]

I see what you're getting at, but Green-Beckham isn't being deprived of the compensation. He's still going to be at Oklahoma on scholarship. Missouri granted his full release. He simply can't play.

An argument based on anti-trust as an employee can only be based solely on his compensation. He's still getting the same compensation at OU whether he sees the field or not, so I don't see how he can make an anti-trust argument.

For your argument to hold water, any player who gets redshirted could file an anti-trust suit against his school. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Sounds legit. Well put.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I see what you're getting at, but Green-Beckham isn't being deprived of the compensation. He's still going to be at Oklahoma on scholarship. Missouri granted his full release. He simply can't play.

An argument based on anti-trust as an employee can only be based solely on his compensation. He's still getting the same compensation at OU whether he sees the field or not, so I don't see how he can make an anti-trust argument.

For your argument to hold water, any player who gets redshirted could file an anti-trust suit against his school. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Not true. They are now going to get back-end money as well, which can only be capped at $5,000 or more unless they win an appeal. Of course, both sides will actually be asking for the cap to be removed. Furthermore, he would not be limited to just the remedy you say, as their actions will be potentially be damaging future compensation which can be another cause of action.

A preliminary injunction might be able to be sought but courts are reluctant to that in contested case.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That's a near impossible thing to prove as he has another year to play. That won't hold a damn. NFL teams could easily cite red flags on character. You're chasing big foot here.

The recent national labor relations board ruling and the O'bannon ruling say Hi.

Well, I done again, you guys come back for round three, eventually maybe you will get a battle victory, the war is already lost as I mentioned years ago.

 

[Grand Vol]

So LSU-SIU, was it your lunch money or did they give you a wedgie in front of the entire cafeteria before dunking your head in your apple sauce?

 

[MemphisCanes]

The recent national labor relations board ruling and the O'bannon ruling say Hi.

Well, I done again, you guys come back for round three, eventually maybe you will get a battle victory, the war is already lost as I mentioned years ago.

I don't think you understand the stuff that you're trying to talk about.

 

[bamawriter]

Not true. They are now going to get back-end money as well, which can only be capped at $5,000 or more unless they win an appeal. Of course, both sides will actually be asking for the cap to be removed. Furthermore, he would not be limited to just the remedy you say, as their actions will be potentially be damaging future compensation which can be another cause of action.

A preliminary injunction might be able to be sought but courts are reluctant to that in contested case.

He'd still be entitled to back-end, cost of living, stipends, etc whether he sees the field or not. At the moment the rulings don't provide more compensation in return for more playing time. Any ruling that provides for that will come long after he's left school.

And the future earnings argument is a complete non-starter for a couple of reasons:

1. He still has another year of eligibility left after his bench year. If he wants to improve his draft stock to maximize his earnings, he can stay at OU in 2015. He can't even make the argument that a lack of playing time would hurt him, because there are numerous examples of guys playing way less than DGB has (and will if he stays for next year) and still going early in the draft. Cam Newton went #1 overall and he only played one year of D-1 ball.

2. There is no way to guarantee what he might or might not make in the future if he plays this year. If I work for a company with a contract stating how much I'll earn, and they breach my contract, I can prove how much that breach cost me in future earnings. There is no way to state with any kind of certainty what DGB might make in the NFL were he to play college ball in 2014. He simply cannot prove damages. And, like I said before, that kind of argument would apply to every single kid who ever redshirted.

 

[KoachKletus]

If a Div 1 player gets injured - can they the get workers comp?

 

[RikidyBones]

If a Div 1 player gets injured - can they the get workers comp?

No. They have a medical plan in place. If I remember right, its limited. I can tell you there are no exposure codes for collegiate athletes.

 

[LSU-SIU]

He will not be entitled to anything on the backend as he will not be on the field, as for the rest its a no go... there is no reason why he even has to stay another year.

Who said there is a "guarantee", it is very normal for expert testimony to be used for determining future income... as that is the only way it can be determine i.e. someone guessing. This is very normal in suits whether you want to be so or not.

I would say most of big school big sport players have a cause of action, if you would actually go look at the cases that are currently been filed... I believe there are something like 30-40 cases at this point... its not one issue... its a whole range of issues from labors laws, anti-trust, medical injuries, etc.

What is funny about this whole thing is I didn't think the players would win either the labor union case or the O'Bannon for political reasons, if the NCAA couldn't defend those they will have almost no shot of winning a sizable amount of the existing cases let alone the 100s that are going to be coming down the pipe now.

The schools better come up with plan B.

Good luck though.

He'd still be entitled to back-end, cost of living, stipends, etc whether he sees the field or not. At the moment the rulings don't provide more compensation in return for more playing time. Any ruling that provides for that will come long after he's left school.

And the future earnings argument is a complete non-starter for a couple of reasons:

1. He still has another year of eligibility left after his bench year. If he wants to improve his draft stock to maximize his earnings, he can stay at OU in 2015. He can't even make the argument that a lack of playing time would hurt him, because there are numerous examples of guys playing way less than DGB has (and will if he stays for next year) and still going early in the draft. Cam Newton went #1 overall and he only played one year of D-1 ball.

2. There is no way to guarantee what he might or might not make in the future if he plays this year. If I work for a company with a contract stating how much I'll earn, and they breach my contract, I can prove how much that breach cost me in future earnings. There is no way to state with any kind of certainty what DGB might make in the NFL were he to play college ball in 2014. He simply cannot prove damages. And, like I said before, that kind of argument would apply to every single kid who ever redshirted.

 

[bamawriter]

He will not be entitled to anything on the backend as he will not be on the field,

But that's irrelevant at the moment. The only rulings at the moment provide for universal back end payments. Playing time is irrelevant. All of the hypothetical payments that may occur aren't based on playing time, nor is there any exclusions for redshirts, injuries, bench years, etc.

as for the rest its a no go... there is no reason why he even has to stay another year.

I never said he had to. But if his argument is that missing a year to show of for scouts will affect his earnings potential, he has another year left. He isn't required to leave if that is a concern.

Who said there is a "guarantee", it is very normal for expert testimony to be used for determining future income... as that is the only way it can be determine i.e. someone guessing. This is very normal in suits whether you want to be so or not.

True. But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of guys going lower than anyone projects. It's not an exact science. The best he could absolutely argue for is the league minimum. But given that he'd make at least that if he makes a team next year, there are no damages. He'd have to completely fail to get drafted or picked up as a UFA in order to argue that missing a year of college ball cost him the ability to make it in the league.

I would say most of big school big sport players have a cause of action, if you would actually go look at the cases that are currently been filed... I believe there are something like 30-40 cases at this point... its not one issue... its a whole range of issues from labors laws, anti-trust, medical injuries, etc.

Not a single one of those cases lists "playing time" as a cause of action. There are only 22 starting spots on a team at any given time, and 85 scholarship players. That means at least 63 guys aren't getting the playing time they'd like to get. Does each one of those 63 guys have a complaint for future earnings because he isn't getting to show off?

Understand, I am fully in favor of players being compensated fairly for their efforts and their merchandising rights. I also think the NCAA's transfer rules are pretty screwed up. But the former has a legal case to argue while the latter doesn't. No one is guaranteed playing time. Period. There is nothing a court can do to force that issue.

 

[tim]

Not up to what I think, its up to what Oklahoma thinks, they are the ones offering the employment.



I can't say I hate much in life, you don't know me. As far as the present business model, its immoral, unethical, and illegal business practices. I would say those are just about facts at this point.

Getting mad at me for pointing out the obvious is really not going to solve the problems of the schools, the NCAA will not even exist in it's current form in 10 years.

How can this be any worse than leaving a team because you cant get on the field and being forced to sit out a year or move down?