clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

The NCAA might've just clinched a loss to O'Bannon

There won't be a verdict for a few weeks, and the organization will appeal, but even the judge is making jokes at the NCAA's expense.

The NCAA has had some witness issues during the O'Bannon trial, from Big Ten commish Jim Delany accidentally making points for the plaintiffs to the Texas women's athletic director indirectly providing some damning evidence. Now NCAA economic expert Daniel Rubinfeld has pushed the organization into an even deeper hole.

We've seen this coming since the beginning of the trial, when the plaintiffs pointed out that Rubinfeld has called the NCAA a cartel before — the exact opposite of what he should be doing. Because of that, he was already in a bit of a hole, and he apparently decided to grasp at anything to pull him out of it. So the day started with Rubinfeld explaining that the NCAA isn't really that bad of a cartel.

So the NCAA might be a cartel, but it's not a classic cartel. Or maybe it's a joint venture (which Rubinfeld also admitted can be anticompetitive). That's not too bad. Glad that's settled.

Then Rubinfeld explained that other amateurism organizations don't pay players, so the NCAA doesn't need to either. This is false equivalency, because the market is typically not as restricted for other amateurs, but Rubinfeld tried to compare his time with USA Tennis as a reason not to pay players. Then the judge made fun of him.

But Rubinfeld had jokez, too!

Now back to more serious matters. Rubinfeld tried to claim that college sports would become less popular and more like the NBA Development League if athletes were paid. This is another false equivalency, because the teams will still be tied to the schools.

The NFL is extraordinarily popular, despite players getting paid a lot. College football is extraordinarily popular, despite players getting paid nothing. The NBDL is not popular, despite players getting paid a little; lots of people attend minor league baseball, where players are paid a little. Player pay is not what makes a sport popular or unpopular.

Still, Rubinfeld continued with that theory, claiming that baseball TV ratings have gone down because players made more money (even though the plaintiffs showed TV ratings in general have gone down). However, NFL ratings are still through the roof even though players are paid.

But even if ratings don't go down with player pay, Rubinfeld claims there would still be problems, because teams would drop out of Division I and schools would play fewer games.

The idea that there would be a mass exodus from Division I is a stretch, but if only the top schools played games against each other, wouldn't that make it more desirable for fans (earlier, the NCAA said its model is good for fans, and thus not anticompetitive)?

Judge Wilken then delivered possibly her biggest blow yet to the NCAA's case. The organization admitted a study that she already said was irrelevant and claimed that schools would lose money, and thus Gonzaga, for example, couldn't spend as much money as Washington State. Wilken attacked that, saying they would spend the same amount of money they currently do, but some of it would just end up with the athletes.

And finally, Wilken asked the big question that the NCAA needed to answer to win the trial, but hasn't been able to, because the proposition is absurd.

Summed up succinctly, this was the testimony from the NCAA's economic witness today, even excluding questions asked of him by the O'Bannon plaintiffs: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The NCAA couldn't even get its own witness to make a substantive point about why its model against player compensation is necessary, and instead, it grasped for anything it could to try to keep its version of amateurism from slipping away.

The trial ends Friday. Based on the judge's attitude toward the organization's points today, the July or August verdict will be an emphatic beatdown. The NCAA's own witnesses helped assure that.